Make the best choices for your Medicare needs with AARP’s Medicare Made Easy. Try it today!

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
431
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

431 Views
Message 161 of 1,448

Bill - I think your problem is the use of meaningless words like "fluoridationist." What exactly does that describe?

Heath authorities are not as idiotic as you seem to wish them to be. When considering the introduction of health policies like community water fluoridation, etc., they rightfully consider a range of factors especially total fluoride intake - including dietary intake.

I cannot see what you comment has to do with Richard's mistaken attempt to attribute a claim to me.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
431
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
436
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

436 Views
Message 162 of 1,448

Richard and Ken,

 

Total fluoride exposure is so very important.  Fluoride from all sources.

 

Fluoridationists evade the issue and want to talk about fluoridated water as though it is the only source.

 

You are spot on Richard to bring up the issue of fluoride from all sources.

 

And Ken, you really mush look at total exposure.  Even though you support adding more fluoride to everyone, you must answer the critical questions of

 

1.  How much do you want?

2.  How much are we getting?

3. How much more should we get and is that still safe?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
436
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
415
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

415 Views
Message 163 of 1,448

Progress, at last, Richard.

This is what I wrote on page 9:

"Connett’s point 1: Why should we not be concerned about controlling the dose of natural levels of fluoride (or many of the other elements we consume) while only be concerned about the fluoride added as a “top up?” The are no differences between the “artificial” and “natural” fluoride anions in drinking water. In reality most elements like this have a sufficiently wide range of concentrations and intakes for efficacy that it is just ridiculous to treat them like powerful drugs which need accurate dosage."

What do you actually object to? I ask because there is nothing here relevant to your original claim.

In fact, Connett objected many times and at length to my statement "The are no differences between the “artificial” and “natural” fluoride anions in drinking water." - which is surprising for a chemist. he could not point to anything to support his objection.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
415
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
360
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

360 Views
Message 164 of 1,448

It is under Ken Perrot Oct 30 the medical argument written criticism of paul connetts point 1.

I stand by what I said.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
360
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
332
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

332 Views
Message 165 of 1,448

It is under Ken Perrot Oct 30 the medical argument written criticism of paul connetts point 1.

I stand by what i said.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
332
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
408
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

408 Views
Message 166 of 1,448

Richard, you tell me "You might want to read the pdf again."

But a quick check on the Connett & Perrott (2014) document suggests to me that perhaps you need to read it yourself.

Nowhere in that article can I find the claim by me that there is"no such thing as naturally fluoride-free water."

So you appear to be arguing with a straw man.

In fact, checking through the document it is Paul Connett who refers mostly to natural fluoride in water or naturally fluoride-free water - not me.

Have a search for the word "naturally" to check that out.

Of course, if you can produce a quote of mine I am open to discussion - but as it stands there is nothing here to discuss.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
408
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
421
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

421 Views
Message 167 of 1,448

In an attempt to imply that fluoride ingestion is no big deal because fluoride is ubiquitous naturally, the claim was made in the pdf that there is no such thing as naturally fluoride free water. You might want to read the pdf again. The other claims against Connett are for the most part misinterpretations of Connett's words that are not his fault. But who wants to spend their life correcting others' junk? 

Furthermore, we have fought the San Diego city council for decades, both in a group setting, San Diegans for Clean water, and as many of us individually, and in public gropus at water district headquarters.  So to say we need to do something about the overruling of the cities' two votes against fluoridation and the city ordinance against it, as though we haven't, is laughable.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
421
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
373
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

373 Views
Message 168 of 1,448

Richard - please be specific.

You say "contrary to the claim in the pdf." Could you please quote the claim and identify the pdf?

Who said what (exactly) where.

Otherwise, discussion is impossible.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
373
Views
Moderator
0
Kudos
357
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

357 Views
Message 169 of 1,448

Hello everyone,

 

Whilst we welcome robust debate, we ask that everyone abides by the guidelines.

 

Please be respectful and refrain from making hateful and/or incendiary comments. You are free to express your opinions, but you must do so in a way that respects the opinions of others.

https://community.aarp.org/t5/custom/page/page-id/Guidelines

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
357
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
366
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

366 Views
Message 170 of 1,448

But fluorinated drugs most certainly are partially metaobolized, typically about 10% releasing free fluoride ion. There is nothing wrong with the chemical recogtnized by IUPAc, nomenclature system that incluedes naming C-F compouinds as fluorides, such as ethyl fluoride, methyl fluoirde,etc. If you want to take up your desires with IUPAC, be my guest.

 

And no the arguments protecting Connett from the false claims in the pdf were not dropped. The posts already made are simply being ignored in order to conveniently attempt to drop them.

What I said stands.. There are waters that are naturally frree of fluoride, contrary to the claim in the pdf. And just because ingesting fluoridated water does not immediately lead to clnically detectable symptoms and signs does not justlfy the claim that fluoride causes no harm. That is insane. Bone accumulation begins with the first sip of fluoridated water and likewise the earliest pathologic abnormality is elevated calcitonin and PTH together, along with formation of bone of poor quality and altered crystal sturicture.  At first for a chronic ttime periodr there are no associated symptoms or signs, either one.So what? That does not mean Connett is wrong, it means he is correct to criticize and denounce fluoridation of people even befroe there are clinically detectable abnormalities.  We have no equipment or  test that is noninvasive to assess the bone damage that occurs during the "subclinical' stage of bone fluorosis. Where do you get this stuff? It would be like claiming it is OK to eat pure cholesterol because for many years you will have no clinically detectable stroke symptoms or angina or other heart symptoms, all while one's carotids and heart artereis are becoming structurally abnormal due to atherosclerosis.  Just because there are no symptoms or signs does not mean it is healthy. Quite the contrary. Fluorosis in the temporary absence of symptoms is nevertheless pathologic.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
366
Views