Solved: AARP Online Community and Discussion Forums - Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action - Page 17

CarryAnne · ‎02-02-2015

“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.

SCIENCE REFERENCES

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!

CarryAnne · ‎10-14-2024

“Today’s ruling represents an important acknowledgement of a large and growing body of science indicating serious human health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water. This court looked at the science and acted accordingly. Now the EPA must respond by implementing new regulations that adequately protect all Americans – especially our most vulnerable infants and children – from this known health threat.” - Wenonah Hauter, Director of Food & Water Watch in “Historic Court Decision in Fluoridation Toxicity Case Orders EPA to Act” (Sept. 25, 2024)

Well, it as been a busy few weeks!

Not only was the final NTP Systematic Review, "Fluoride Exposure: Neurodevelopment and Cognition" published in August (despite political efforts by HHS/PHS and ADA to scuttle it) after five (or was it six) peer reviews, the Final Findings and Conclusion of Law from a lengthy de novo trial was rendered in September with excellent detail, and the 2024 Cochrane Systematic Review, "Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries," published in October repeated that dental fluorosis is an adverse effect of fluoridation, a practice which provides no benefit to adults or lower socio-economic groups. The Cochrane authors also wrote that the very small benefit they were able to document to children from "poor quality" studies at high risk of bias "may not be real."

In other words, community water fluoridation is all risk and no benefit. Fluoridation is dental mythology, a magic potion tooth-fairy tale. The most important thing is that Judge Chen ordered the EPA to take action to eliminate the risk to consumers.

UNSAFE: p. 2: the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.

HAZARD: p 5: The pooled benchmark dose analysis concluded that a 1-point drop in IQ of a child is to be expected for each 0.28 mg/L of fluoride in a pregnant mother’s urine. This is highly concerning, because maternal urinary fluoride levels for pregnant mothers in the United States range from 0.8 mg/L at the median and 1.89 mg/L depending upon the degree of exposure. Not only is there an insufficient margin between the hazard level and these exposure levels, for many, the exposure levels exceed the hazard level of 0.28 mg/L.
CERTAINTY: p. 77: The scientific literature in the record provides a high level of certainty that a hazard is present; fluoride is associated with reduced IQ. There are uncertainties presented by the underlying data regarding the appropriate point of departure and exposure level to utilize in this risk evaluation. But those uncertainties do not undermine the finding of an unreasonable risk; in every scenario utilizing any of the various possible points of departures, exposure levels and metrics, a risk is present in view of the applicable uncertainty factors that apply.
VULNERABILITY: p. 76: The size of the affected population is vast. Approximately 200 million Americans have fluoride intentionally added to their drinking water at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L. See Dkt. No. 421 at 206-07 (undisputed). Other Americans are indirectly exposed to fluoridated water through consumption of commercial beverages and food manufactured with fluoridated water
SUSCEPTIBILITY: p. 76: Approximately two million pregnant women, and over 300,000 exclusively formula-fed babies are exposed to fluoridated water. The number of pregnant women and formula-fed babies alone who are exposed to water fluoridation each year exceeds entire populations exposed to conditions of use for which EPA has found unreasonable risk; the EPA has found risks unreasonable where the population impacted was less than 500 people.

View solution in original post

rs5526 · ‎02-18-2019

The absurd and impossible claim that fluoride remineraluzes teeth is false advertising. Healthy normal rock hard translucent crystallinw teerh enamel contains no fluoriide. So how could fluoride cause it to be mineralized again? It cant. If one said calcium phossphate remineralizes teeth at least you would have a chemical argument to make..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

KenP315323 · ‎02-18-2019

Yes, of course, phosphate and calcium, together with fluoide, are involved in remineralising teeth, as well as inhibiting acid attack. The scientific observation that acid attack is moved to lower pH values when fluoride is present underlines how the involvement of fluioide in saliova helps reduce acid attack but calcium and phosphate are also involved in the chemical reactions occurring at the tooth surface.

There is a natural concentration on fluoide, but there are similar research reports of calcium levels in drinking water influencing the prevalance of tooth decay. In my own research, I have seen how calcium contrations in soil solution have a dramatic effect on the solubility of fluorapatite in soil.

Tooth enamel contains a small amount of fluoride in its chemical structure. But the important fluoride for existing teeth is at the surface of the tooth and in the saliva where it is involved, together with calcium and phosphate, in the surface reactions.

That important fluoride is in the surface layer of only a few nanometres. Read my recent article on this describing the recent research showing how that surface fluoride inhibits acid attack - https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2018/11/26/protection-of-teeth-by-fluoride-confirmed-yet-again/

rs5526 · ‎02-18-2019

Your article suggests that fluoride is a peripheral contaminant on the surface of teeth when it is applied at 500 ppm. This has nothing to do with water fluoridation at 0.7 ppm that produces 0.016 ppm fluoride in saliva bathing teeth topically.

Further, one would need to brush teeth with 500 ppm fluoride every 20 minutes to actually retain this effect. It would be more efficient to paint teeth with white paint.Atleast theprote4citon from acid erosion would last for a while.

All this to justify increased cancer mortality, increased thyroid impairment, lowered IQ, and permanent bone accumulation forming bone of altered crystal structure and poor quality.

Count me out. .

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

KenP315323 · ‎02-18-2019

Richard, you are being purposely obtuse. The study I referred to was with a model apatite system, not teeth but designed to answer the question of whether the very thin surface layer with high fluoride content could provide the correction required. They used the 500 ppm solution to create the surface layer in their model - but this surface layer in existing teeth has been recognised before.

You continue to refer back to the 0.016 ppm F in saliva from INGESTED F - freshly excreted saliva without any interaction with food and beverage. You purposely attempt to confuse the issue because you know very well I have been discussing saliva with fluoride, calcium and phosphate levels which are far higher because of exposure to beverage and food during eating. Also to F released from CaF2 reserves in the oral cavity.

Please stop attempting this confusion - which seems quite common from people trying to deny the science. Paul Connett got to the stage of arguing that when one drank water there was no way it made contact with saliva in the mouth!!

Yes, the level of salivary chemical species like fluoride, calcium and phosphate does decline quite rapidly - that is why research shows that drinking fluoridated water has a protective effect above and beyond the use of fluoridated toothpaste once or twice a day

I just hope you can reduce these deliberate attempts at diversion and confusion as they make good faith scientific exchange impossible.

DavidF928895 · ‎02-18-2019

Richard, your quote: "All this to justify increased cancer mortality,"

Response: While water fluoridation is increasing in this country, https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/FSGrowth.htm

cancer mortality is declining. https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/facts-and-figures-2019.html

No doubt you will try to defend your comment, even in the face of reality. Poor Richard.

rs5526 · ‎02-18-2019

I am not "poor". I am merely aware of the data from the text Fluoride the Aging Factor by biochemist John Yiamouyiannis. I do not dispute the data like fluoridationists do. It is valid and was used in several court cases to demonstrate that cities before fluoridation had diminishing cancer mortality at a much faster rate than after fluoridation began..

What else do you want me to say? Denounce the data?

No thanks.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

DavidF928895 · ‎02-18-2019

Richard . . Richard . . Richard.

Your quote:

" I am merely aware of the data from the text Fluoride the Aging Factor by biochemist John Yiamouyiannis. I do not dispute the data like fluoridationists do. It is valid and was used in several court cases to demonstrate that cities before fluoridation had diminishing cancer mortality at a much faster rate than after fluoridation began..

What else do you want me to say? Denounce the data?"

Response: John Yiamouyiannis? Isn't he the guy who said HIV doesn't cause Aids? Yes, he was.

Do I want you to denounce the data? No. I would like you to look at the data of this century. "Fluoride the Aging Factor," was published in 1983.

It is a fact that Cancer Mortality is declining in this country https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/facts-and-figures-2019.html . . . And it is a fact that water fluoridation is increasing in this country. https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/FSGrowth.htm

Yiamouyiannis' skewered data of more than 35 years ago is irrelevant.

And, as expected, you have looked truth in the face and denied it because your own biases outweigh your slipping grasp of reality. What a great scientist you must be.

rs5526 · ‎02-18-2019

Fluoridation of major cities in the U.S. did not occur in 1945. Only two cities were force drugged back then and the bone thickening observed,on xrays,was ignored because the examiners already decided they wanted fluoridatuon to be aporoved.

The major spread started in the 1960s. The entire LA basin began in 2011 and,san duego ca in,2013.

So cancer mortality needs to be studied in a proper selective,way. Yiamouyiannis had the best data demonstrating that fluoridation blocked the decrease in cancer mortality in all fluoridated cities examined pre and post fluoridation.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

DavidF928895 · ‎02-18-2019

Richard, if this comment is a response to my comment, it is moot.

Your quote: "Fluoridation of major cities in the U.S. did not occur in 1945. Only two cities were force drugged back then and the bone thickening observed,on xrays,was ignored because the examiners already decided they wanted fluoridatuon to be aporoved.

The major spread started in the 1960s. The entire LA basin began in 2011 and,san duego ca in,2013. . . . . "

Richard, I was responding to Sirpac who was implying that life expectency in the United States had been declining over the past 3 years because of water fluoridation.

Sirpac provided this link to support his comment. https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/national/health-science/us-life-expectancy-declines-again-a-d...

This quote is from Sirpac's own link:

"Drug overdoses set another annual record in 2017, cresting at 70,237 — up from 63,632 the year before, the government said in a companion report. The opioid epidemic continued to take a relentless toll, with 47,600 deaths in 2017 from drugs sold on the street such as fentanyl and heroin, as well as prescription narcotics. That was also a record number, driven largely by an increase in fentanyl deaths."

This was also from his link:

"Other factors in the life expectancy decline include a spike in deaths from flu last winter and increases in deaths from chronic lower respiratory diseases, Alzheimer’s disease, strokes and suicide. Deaths from heart disease, the No. 1 killer of Americans, which had been declining until 2011, continued to level off.

Deaths from cancer continued their long, steady, downward trend."

Richard, you also said,

"So cancer mortality needs to be studied in a proper selective,way. Yiamouyiannis had the best data demonstrating that fluoridation blocked the decrease in cancer mortality in all fluoridated cities examined pre and post fluoridation."

No. Death from cancer is decreasing. Suicide and drug overdose are why life expectency in this country is declining. Death from the Flu also contributed to this trend. Let's not forget to include our anti-vaccine fanatic friends who made their own small contribution to the increase of death in the U.S.

Again, this country has bigger problems than water fluoridated at the optimal level of 0.7 parts per million.

rs5526 · ‎02-18-2019

Compact bone and,spongy bone are completely different structures and turnover in compact bone is extremely slow and not known for any given individual. If you want to disagree with the,assesment by the NRC with an estimated floirude half removal rate of 20 years, go ahead and good luck with that. .i choose to stick with facts.. and 20 years,is hardly the feature of a nutrient. It is an accumulative poison that causes formation of bone of poor quality. At uncertain levels perhaps around 1700 mg/kg it forms exostoses that are not reversible. Im sorry to burst your bubble but the trurh is what matters..

If you want you can read the fluoride toxicology chapter in the recent text top ten contributoons in environmentsl health or the original article in the journal of environmental and publuc health 439490.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

rs5526 · ‎02-18-2019

Saliva fluoride in a fluoridated city averages 0.016 ppm, totally worthless at affecting enamel, at about 95,000 times less concentrated than in toothpaste.

So please get real.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

KenP315323 · ‎02-18-2019

Yes, the plea to "get real" always comes up when attempting to carry out a scientific exchange with those people ideologically opposed to community water fluodiation. People who characteristically misrepresent and distort the science.

In this case, pointing out how fluoride, phosphate and calcium in food and beverages contribute to increased concentrations of these chemical species in saliva gets a common response by distorting the issue. The small increase if F- concentration of excreted saliva may or may not confer a health benefit - but we are not talking about that. We are discussing the increased saliva concentration of these chemical species because of inputs from food and beverage (and also F from CaF2 reserves in the oral cavity).

I just wish people would stop misrepresenting the issue and face up to a good faith scientific exchange.

sirpac271999 · ‎02-18-2019

It is amazing how some people still insist that there is some 'benefit' from artificial water fluoridation with toxic industrial waste silicofluorides, when there is absolutely zero valid science to support such ridiculous assertion. Not only is there no benefit, regardless of what some authoritative bodies may claim, fluorides are category 6 toxins by law. It is abviously not a large leap to think that people, who continue to sponsor this "dilution is solution to pollution" policy, have some alterior motives that have nothing to do with health whatsoever.

In comparison to the fluoridated US, where life expectancy continues to drop and cancer rates soar, the Hunza live up to 120 years on average, with no modern medical or chemical interventions. What is wrong with this picture? https://www.shughal.com/health-secrets-hunza-people-live-100-years-cancer-free/

See US: https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/national/health-science/us-life-expectancy-declines-again-a-d...

DavidF928895 · ‎02-18-2019

Sirpac, More about the Hunza --

In 1996, John Tierney wrote:

"When I went there seven years ago to write about the fabled ''Hunza health secrets,'' I understood why everyone called it Shangri-La.

"It was the most beautiful place I'd ever seen. The valley's lush green terraces were shielded from the outside world by a 25,000-foot pyramid of snow shaped just like the mystical mountain in Hilton's novel, and there seemed to be a remarkable number of old people as hale as the monks of Shangri-La. But my enchantment didn't last. The great Hunza secret to old age turned out to be its absence of birth records. The illiterate elders didn't know how old they were, and they tended to overestimate their ages by a decade or two, as I discovered by comparing their recollections with known historical events. Hunza didn't have an unusual number of centenarians, it turned out, and its traditional way of life was not a formula for good health.

"The mountain air did seem pristine, but the people spent most of their time inside mud huts breathing horribly polluted air from open fires. They suffered from bronchitis and a host of ailments like tuberculosis, dysentery, malaria, tetanus and cancer. An iodine deficiency in their diet caused mental retardation. Children went hungry in the spring as food stores dwindled. . . " https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/29/magazine/the-optimists-are-right.html?pagewanted=2

DavidF928895 · ‎02-18-2019

Interesting observations, Sirpac. If only any of it were true.

My google search showed me that life expectency in the U.S. has been on a steady incline since 1970. At about 2010 it leveled off. And for 3 years now it has begun to drop off. https://www.google.com/search?q=Life+expectancy+rates+in+the+u.S.&rlz=1C1GIWA_enUS592US594&oq=Life+e...

Since Water Fluoridation has been around since before the 1950s, and life expectancy has steadly gone up until 2010, your theory doesn't make much sense.

Moreover, it appears that suicide and drug overdoses are responsible for the current drop in life expectncy in this country. We've got bigger problems than water fluoridation. https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/29/health/life-expectancy-2017-cdc/index.html

Your comments about the Hunza are a myth. Aside from the fact that birth records were not kept in remote villages of Pakistan 100 years ago, Dr. John Clark stayed with these people for 20 months and recounts his experiences in his book "Lost Kingdom of the Himalayas."

He writes:

"I wish also to express my regrets to those travelers whose impressions have been contradicted by my experience. On my first trip through Hunza, I acquired almost all the misconceptions they did: The Healthy Hunzas, the Democratic Court, The Land Where There Are No Poor, and the rest—and only long-continued living in Hunza revealed the actual situations".

Regarding the misconception about Hunza people's health, Clark also writes that most of his patients had malaria, dysentery, worms, trachoma, and other health conditions easily diagnosed and quickly treated. In his first two trips he treated 5,684 patients.

Furthermore, Clark reports that Hunza do not measure their age solely by calendar (metaphorically speaking, as he also said there were no calendars), but also by personal estimation of wisdom, leading to notions of typical lifespans of 120 or greater. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burusho_people#Influence_in_the_Western_world

But don't let me stop you from gleaning the wisdom of snake-oil alternative medicine. Who knows, your own fantasy may add to your own longevity.

rs5526 · ‎02-18-2019

Absurd. Fluoride is not a mineral nutrient. Physiologic mineral nutrients,exert actions that are saturable,and fully reversible with dilution. Fluoride incorporation into bone is not saturable (stage 3 fluorisis has over 12,000 mg/kg in bone) and the incorooration is not reversible biochemically as for actual nutrients The estimated,half life for fluiride in bone is over 20 years, after removal from fluoridated,water exposure (N4C 2006)

This is,all old news. You can find it in the FDA fluoridation ban petition.

The FDA after 11 years finally concluded that fluoride which has never been FDA ,approved for ingestion is, a toxic substance andcshoyld be regulated under the toxic, suubstances control act by the EPA. Sadly the EPA,refuses and expects the FDA to regulate it because it is intentionally added by request of CDC dentists.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

KenP315323 · ‎02-18-2019

Richard, bones are not static. They are continuously reforming and the chemical species in bones, Ca, phosphate, fluoride) are continually being leached out and replaced.

rs5526 · ‎02-18-2019

Whether there are fluoride precipitates in pipes or not, fluoridation chemicals leach lead salts ftom plumbing.

And xray analyses of teeth treated,even with high concentrations of fluoride such as in dental gels does not incorporate fluoride into enamel (which is mostly is inorganic in teeth with a small amount of amelogenin very much different than the biomatrix in bone). The fluoride then combines with calcium to form globules on teeth detected under scanning EM. These readily dissolve in,slight acidity such as when meal eating and the globules are swallowed and end up in bone anyway.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

KenP315323 · ‎02-18-2019

Richard:

1: whether or not fluoridation causes leaching of Pb from pipes is easily shown by comparing the Pb levels in drinking water from fluoridated and unfluoridated systems. The ones I have looked at show no difference - but please provide analytical data if you have any.

2: Yes, I am aware that treatment with high concentration fluoride produces CaF2 reserves in the oral cavity - these can then contribute to low concentrations of fluoride in saliva over time and inhibit acid attack on enamel as well as repair it.

It is the low saliva F cocnetration from fluodiated water and food and from leachign these CaF2 reserves that produce the changes in the surface layers of teeth which are benficial in preventing acid attack.

rs5526 · ‎02-18-2019

Whether there are fluoride precipitates in pipes or not, fluoridation chemicals leach lead salts ftom plumbing.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

rs5526 · ‎02-17-2019

Exxchange reactions of fluoride replacing hydroxide in bone hydroxyapatite (and in lead salts on oxidized plumbing) are not surprising. What is shocking is that the same fluoridationists who argue that these reactions do not take place neverthtless also argue that fluoride does incorporate into teeth enamel hydroxyapatite. Enamel is far too hard a form of the calcium phospahte material than bone and fluoride does not incorporate into the enamel matrix like it does in bone.

How much more backward can a human being be on this?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

KenP315323 · ‎02-17-2019

Richard, bioapatites like bones and teeth are not hydroxyapatites - and just as well. In the real world, there are isomorphous substitutions of various cations and anions and F in the structure strengthens and lowers the solubuility of the apatite. So F incorporation inot bioapatites is perfectly natural. (And, incidentally, the use of hydroxyapatite as models for tooth enamel is very misleading)

Yes, there are problenms when the incorporation is excessive - but like all nutrients, we understand there are upper and lower levels to dietary itnakes.

The incorporation of F into the surfacer layers of tooth apatite does confer protective properties and that incorporation with existing teeth is proven to occur only at the surface layers in practice.

rs5526 · ‎02-17-2019

The kumar comments need no link. Just read the study itself. The mean differences,are not outside the error bars. Is that too difficult?

And there cant be any caries reduction based on actual solid, studies provided before that are ignored by fluoridationists, from ziegelbecker and from teotia and from yiamouyiamnis and from the perfectly controlled mammalian studies. You can drink fluoride water all day long and it will not correct or prevent dental caries

And it cannot lower their incidence if you take care of your teeth and have no caries in the frst place.lack of fluoride does not cause caries. Again, the nonsense that never ends is what is boring.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

rs5526 · ‎02-17-2019

The issue is not at all boring. Trying to protect people from ingesting worthless poisonous substances is not boring.

What is boring is,arguing with someone who has no clue what the truth is and refuses to learn it.

I never said,a single salmon was killed by fluoridated water. .you obviously have not learned about the university of oregon studies,and the john jay dam results. Fluoride at 0. 7 ppm doesnt kill salmon. Where do you get this stuff?

Fluoride,at 0.3 or higher (as is fluoridated,water in the discharge pipe in the sacramento river] prevents, salmon from spawning normally. No eggs,are laid near the discharge pipe. The fact thst you still cant understand is what makes,it boring.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

rs5526 · ‎02-17-2019

Partly boredom with the absurdity of arguing with a fluoridation advocate. And partly becabecause im very busy with other issues and partly because i am recovering from surgery, etc.

I i havent made incorrect statements. In your way of thinking you need to correct them when they dont need correcting.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

DavidF928895 · ‎02-17-2019

Richard,

If you are bored, perhaps you should find other things to do that hold your interest. As for me, I'm having the time of my life. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Your quote: "I i (sic.) havent made incorrect statements."

Response: No? Here are three examples for starters.

1.) Your quote: "I never said if you drink fluoridated water yiu (sic.) will develop CO brown stain." (Timestamp ‎02-17-2019 11:08 AM) . . . That incorrect statement was disproven in my comment timestamped ‎02-17-2019 01:07 PM.

2.) You also said, "You quote kumar wjo (sic.) publishes data that have means that do not differ beyond standard etror (sic.) and proclaims that a fluorotic tooth is resistant to decay. That is deception." . . . It is not deception; therefore your comment is incorrect. I provided a link to a valid peer-reviewed study to support my comment which you called deception. I asked you to provide valid peer-reviewed work to support your contrary opinion. You were able to provide Nothing. Your comment was incorrect. And

3.) You said CWF was responsible for the collapse of the salmon industry in the Sacramento River. You provided not One Shread of evidence to support your solitary opinion. You just made up this story without a.) knowing background fluoride levels in the river . . . b.) checking fluoride levels in the river downstream of effluent discharge . . . c.) knowing the flow of the river . . .

d.) knowing the amount of daily effluent discharge . . . e.) any examination of any actual dead salmon . . . f.) and without the agreement of even one real environmentalist who actually agrees with your unique hypothesis.

Yes, Dr. Sauerheber. You make incorrect statements all the time. Perhaps you do it out of boredom.

rs5526 · ‎02-17-2019

The studies published by maas, and others demonstrated lead leaching by fluoridation materials at levels used in fluoridation. The san diego data i collected myself.. I dont rely on the EPA for that since they generally dont interfere with intentional government endorsed fluoridation.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

DavidF928895 · ‎02-17-2019

You know, Richard, you have been making statements, and I have been proving you wrong for a long time now. This is just a personal observation, but I've noticed at as the day wears on, your writing skills appear to deteriorate. Can you think of anything that would account for this?

rs5526 · ‎02-17-2019

First its deception now its hypocrisy.

In reality its, simple knowledge of the truth, that fluoride at any dose is a poison. It as no physiologic function and is not an ingredient of the normal bloodstream. Period.

And yet we have fluoridation societies who demand people ingest it. What do we call that?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.