Tell Congress to stop Rx greed and cut prescription drug prices now! Here’s how.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
562
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

562 Views
Message 271 of 1,417

Richard: 

 

1.)  " What I said in plain English is what the statute means."

 

Response:  No it doesn't.  You said, "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"  

 

The provision reads:  "No National primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water” 

 

"Prohibits" is not the same thing as "No . . regulation may require."  Prohibits means you can't do it.  No regulation may require means the Federal government can't make you do it.  Anyone who can comprehend the written word knows this.    

 

Am I done humiliating you with this, or do you want to continue?  

 

2.)  This is priceless:  "The Sacramento River discharge tube is municipal water during a drought having the same 1 ppm fluoride that was added in the first place. It doesn't disappear and it is the entire citie's (sic.) water supply and in fact increases somewhat in concentration because of evaporation."

 

Response:  First of all, no actual fluoride levels were measured in the river pre or post discharge.  Is that correct?  

 

In the second place, did it ever occur to you that sanitary sewer systems are not waterproof?  That's right.  There is such a thing as water infiltration which will dilute sewage.  Manhole covers are not water proof.  Simply looking at flow rates during rainy days and comparing them to flow rates during dry times will confirm this.

 

Did you do that?  No, of course not.  Can you tell me how much effluent is discharged into the Sacramento River?   No, you can't.  Can you tell me what the flow and temperatures of the river is pre and post discharge.  No, you can't.  

 

Your quote:  "It doesn't disappear and it is the entire citie's (sic.) water supply and in fact increases somewhat in concentration because of evaporation."

 

Response:  Evaporation?  In a closed sewer system?  Ok.  How much?  Were any "evaporation" measurements taken anywhere?  No, they were not.  You just made it up to justify your story.

 

You are a one-of-a-kind scientist who believes no evidence is required to make up a theory and spout off about it as though it were fact.  

 

Am I going to continue to humiliate you about this or are we done? 

 

3.)  Your quote:  "3.The comment about 3 samples being representative of all is of course stupid and that is why I never made such a claim."  

 

Response:  I never said you did.  Please show me where I said you made this claim.  Nevertheless, you said, "And also now that claims I implied that 3 samples  is representative of all sources used to fluoridate water supplies?"    That was a lie.  You can apologize to me about that.

 

"Straw Man --  an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."  

 

Your quote:  ". So you try to trap people who oppose fluoridation so that you can denounce them?"

 

Response:  I'm not trying to "trap" anyone.  You're making up theories about salmon that nobody else believes in, with absolutely no evidence.  You're misreading a simple provision in the SDWA and spewing out your misrepresentation of it as though it were truth.  And you're putting words in my mouth so that you can try to look like some kind of victim here.  I don't need to try to trap you.  Your own words are doing that for you.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
562
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
575
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

575 Views
Message 272 of 1,417

wow.

1. What I said in plain English is what the statute means. Apologize? for what?  The CDC requests fluoridation of the country and their staff has intimidated many States into absolute mandating fluoridation as a police power.

2. The Sacramento River discharge tube is municipal water during a drought having the same 1 ppm fluoride that was added in the first place. It doesn't disappear and it is the entire citie's water supply and in fact increases somewhat in concentration because of evaporation. So what? And again to emphasize, a salmon collapse is not dead salmon, it is a gross diminishing of egg laying and spawning so that the following years the expected population is decimated. It still is going on in the Sacramento tributary where the discharge tube is, while other tributaries are gaining some ground (likely becaue the salmon that would have returned to the affected tributary do not recognize the fluoridated water and must adjust to spawn in adjoining areas).

3.The comment about 3 samples being representative of all is of course stupid and that is why I never made such a claim. I was asked how many she used and I answered. So what? Many preparations of fluosilciic acid hazardous waste are far more contraminated than those she tested, especially the materials shipped here from China, as I stated. If you are confused, I really have a hard time caring, because by your own admission  you asked the question when you already knew the answer (3). So you try to trap people who oppose fluoridation so that you can denounce them? Again, you sarcastically made it clear that of course 3 samples are not representative of all (as though I had thought this?) and you want me to apologize?  For what , the truth? In your dreams.

No wonder Dr. Osmunsen blocked your correspondence.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
575
Views
Conversationalist
3
Kudos
521
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

521 Views
Message 273 of 1,417

Fluoride leaching lead has a history in other cities as well as Sandy, Utah

7BBD01AD-7279-4420-AC07-8C8872C2C937.png

 

D6349C24-6281-4EBB-BA6F-9EB0158A39B7.png

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
521
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
533
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

533 Views
Message 274 of 1,417

KenP, are you referring to this?

 

"02-20-2019 01:49 PM

skanen144 inTable 2.8, page 28.

In the real world, of course, the pyromorphite will be a chlorohydroxy analogue, with some F if there is any available for incorporation, rather than a pure end member.

That is why the chemical analyses are so important. XRD won't provide that information."

 

and

 

"02-20-2019 02:05 PM

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."

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
533
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
524
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

524 Views
Message 275 of 1,417

Richard, here we go again.

 

The exact provision to which you are referring is this:  “No National primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water”   Correct?  

 

You had said, " "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"  

 

Now look at the provision.  "“No National primary drinking water regulation . . "  That is a reference to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act itself. 

 

" . . may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water”   This means that the SDWA may not mandate (require), may not insist upon, may not enforce or demand that (in this case we are talking about) fluoride be added to drinking water. 

 

It doesn't say water fluoridation is prohibited.  It just says it may not be mandated by a Federal authority toward a local or state level.  That's about as clear as it gets.

 

Your inability to admit when you are wrong amazes even me.  I am using the English language.  Are you using something different?  

 

Your quote:  "But is this the same guy who also claimed I said that all the salmon in the Sacramento River were killed by fluoride discharges?"

 

Response:  That's right.  And when you pointed out my mistatement I apologized and corrected myself.  The fact that you would exploit a mistatement that was admitted, apologized, and corrected by me says a lot about your character.  

 

But you did say CWF was responsible for the collapse of the Salmon industry in the Sacramento River, with absolutely no evidence to support it.  You don't know fluoride levels in the river pre or post effluent discharge.  You've never taken temperature measurements of the river.  You don't know what the daily discharge of effluent is, and you don't know the flow of the river itself.  

 

Would you care to contradict any of that?  Moreover, there are no environmentalists who have reached that conclusion or agree with you.  You came up with the idea yourself with no evidence to support it.

 

And finally, your quote:  "And also now that claims I implied that 3 samples  is representative of all sources used to fluoridate water supplies?"

 

Let's review.  You had said, "Phyllis Mullenix and others have analyzed samples of fluosilicic acid . . "  ‎02-20-2019 11:12 AM

 

Knowing the answer to the question, I asked you, "Dr. Richard, could you tell me how many samples of fluosilicic acid Phyllis Mullenix tested?  I am curious how comprehensive her analysis was."  02-20-2019 01:31 PM

 

Your resonse was, "Mullenix examined in detail three different samples of fluosilicic acid."

 

Yeah, I knew that.  That's why I asked it.  So I said, "Three Whole Samples?  I'm sure that must be representative of the millions of tons produced worldwide."  ‎02-20-2019 02:58 PM

 

And from that exchange, you came up with, "And also now that claims I implied that 3 samples  is representative of all sources used to fluoridate water supplies?"

 

I never implied that.  In fact I implied just the opposite.  The little Mullenix study, with only 3 samples tested, should in no way be considered comprehensive or representative of the product used in CWF.  But you go around citing it as if it were the Bible.  (The way you read things, from that you'll probably accuse me of misquoting the Bible.)

 

Maybe I should ask you for an apology . . Nah, nevermind.  The ability to apologize or admit when you are wrong is way beyond you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
524
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
578
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

578 Views
Message 276 of 1,417

It's hard to believe the same people who claim others are deceptive are themsleevs most devious. Fluoridationists refuse to accept that fluoridationof people could do anything bad and it must be predefined as only good for you, so they even discount the effects of fluoride that accumulates in bone in all consumers.

After 20 years of consuming 1 ppm F water the bone concentration might reach about 2,000 mg/kg. This is even higher than the fluoride concentration in fluoridated toothpaste. And in a place where it does not belong, a contaminant that weakens bone (CDC, ATSDR, 2003).  Unbelievably, with a straight face fluoridationists argue that this has no clinical significance. But levels this high can in some peple cause bone pain suffiicent to cause bone replacement surgery. Others do not have that type of pain (due to diffeences in bone innervation or other factors?) but all have an abnormally formed microcrystal structure where fluoride exchanges for hydroxide. There is no biochemical hormone that is deisgned to resorb fluoridated bone. PTH is designed to resorb normal bone to release calcium in times of calcium dietary deficiency which is necessary to support physiologic functions, thee most critical of which is mediating excittation and contraction in the beating heart. Every time the heart contracts it is because extracellular calcium rushes into the cell after electrical excitation to activate contractile fibrils, and when it is pumped back out the heart relaxes. Lub- dub occurs because of calcium in and calcium out.  Fluoridation of bone compromises the ability of a person to sustain the beating heart in times of calcium deficiency. This is a clinically signficant problem and fluoridatioisnts will never admit or even believe it or ever bother to study it because fluoride is predefined as being good for you.

Here we have fliuen suj;lins who cloaim that flien has beenon the rise and Cancer mortality as been argued here to be unbaffected by fluoride ingestion. because fluoridation has been on the rise at the time cancer has been in decline. Hogwash. Fluoridaiton is not increasing. Many cities across the country in the last many years have halted fluoridation. Further, the HHS requested in 2011 that fluoride levels be reduced from 1 to 0.7 ppm in water because of the endemic of dental enamel hypoplasia fluorosis due to fluoride poisonoing in U.S. teens. So fluoridation has not be "increasing" during the time canccer has been in decline which has been happenbiunbg sinece tge nud 1960'. Fluoride ingestion in fact has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to minmize the decline.

Do fluoridaitonists believe this? Of course not. That is not possible because all such discoveries are discounted for any possible reason they think they have found because fluoride is pre-defined as being good for you.

Get the picture now?.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
578
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
582
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

582 Views
Message 277 of 1,417
Did you get my reply to this - I cannot find it and have trouble getting around this site.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
582
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
582
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

582 Views
Message 278 of 1,417

The exact SDWA quote is written in the article I published in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490 in 2013 on page 9.

If you refuse to read the Act then just go there to see the legal, Congressionally approved statement..

 

But is this the same guy who also claimed I said that all the salmon in the Sacramento River were killed by fluoride discharges?

And also now that claims I implied that 3 samples  is representative of all sources used to fluoridate water supplies?

If it is the same guy then hopefully all will see that discussion is pointless and he just wants to twist what is said to make it ludicrous so he can have the luxury of attacking and then saying I am the one who needs some sleep. 

Incredible, no?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
582
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
580
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

580 Views
Message 279 of 1,417

As usual, it is sheer insanity to talk with a fluoridationist about fluoridation.

Again, of course i never said, nor would anyine, that 3 samples are reprentative of all samples used in fluoridation .that someone complained about. I merely said that phyllis tested 3 samples.

Maybe you should get some sleep

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
580
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
504
Views

Re: Examine the Evidence

504 Views
Message 280 of 1,417

Richard says, "And when pray tell did I make such a claim about 3 samples? "

 

Um, right here:  "Mullenix examined in detail three different samples of fluosilicic acid."  ‎02-20-2019 02:26 PM

 

Get some sleep, Richard.  This is too easy.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
504
Views