Take 25 percent off the cost of the award-winning AARP Smart Driver online course! Use promo code ‘BHM’ for savings.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
425
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

425 Views
Message 271 of 1,056

Richard, this is your entire quote.  You said, "The NSF labels fluosilicic acid hazardous waste as a water purifying agent pass inspection and to gain favor with skeptics so that it appears legal to add into water."  ‎10-30-2018 10:50 AM

 

Response:  Ok, I had to read this a few times to understand what you were saying.  Your grammer is a bit muddled.  You are the one calling fluorosilicic acid a "hazardous waste."  (The NSF labels fluosilicic acid hazardous waste as a water purifying agent . ."  It would have been more understandable if you had said, "The NSF lables fluorosilicic acid, which is a hazardous waste, a water purifying agent."  You needed some comas for clarity.)

 

That's a lie too.  The NSF doesn't label fluorosilicic acid as a water purifying agent (because it is not a water purifying agent - not every water additive is for the purpose of making water clean.  We've already gone over this.), to gain favor with skeptics or for any other reason.  Please provide the link which supports that "untruth."

 

Falsus in UnoFalsus in Omnibus

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
425
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
436
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

436 Views
Message 272 of 1,056

I know it musst be difficult for a fluoridation promoter to understand, because no one actually wants to find out that they are harming, rather than helping, people.  But for the benefit of the country please try harder to understand. 

NSF standard 60 allows the final concentation of EPA contaminants in water at only 10% of their MCL. But 10% of the fluoride MCL's of 2 - 4 ppm in water would be 0.2 - 0.4 ppm. Fluoridation is conducted at 0.7 - 1 ppm, so NSF had little choice but to re-describe the fluoride contaminant (which it is) as a "water additive" (which it is not, since it does not purify water) that would then be allowed.

And since when is a Nation's entire water supply supposed to be controlled by a private organization anyway? Answer: when the EPA does not want to regulate a contaminant because it is believed at low concentrations to be a therapeutic treatment that is endorsed by the Federal CDC, then the private organization the NSF is asked to take charge of certification of the EPA hazardous waste source material. Avoiding liability is of paramount importance to Federal agencies, so when an Agency is expected to take charge of an issue with which they have no expertise, then it is farmed out. Understand better? 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
436
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
458
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

458 Views
Message 273 of 1,056

You are taking one portion of the statement out of context. The EPA itslef (including me and other scientists) labels fluosilicic acid prepared from fertilizer waste as a hazardous waste, because it is a hazardous waste.

The NSF describes that hazardous waste a water "purifying agent" when it is intentionally added into water.. 

Have you even read the 320 page NSF document on water regulations and requirements that includes Standard 60? 

Part of the text labels fluoride as a water contaminant (as labeled by the EPA). Other parts of the text change the name to indicate it is an allowed additive if it is added on purpose.

They go so far as to overrule their own regulations, of allowing contaminants at only 10% of the EPA MCL, for fluoride because when it is added on purpose it is then considered by NSF to be an additive. NSF has no expertise in toxicology testing or in regulating the fluoridation of people and yet stamps seals of approval on hazardous waste that is labeled a water additive. .

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
458
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
449
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

449 Views
Message 274 of 1,056

Thanks for all your input about Vitamin D, Dr. Rich.  However, it would have been more appropriate for you to respond to questions directed toward you, instead of avoiding them.  

 

For example, this from me:

 

"Your quote:  ""The NSF labels fluosilicic acid hazardous waste . . "

 

That is a verifiable "untruth."  NSF says no such thing.  If so, please provide evidence of that."

 

So, again, could you please provide a link to an NSF website in which it labels fluorosilicic acid a "hazardous waste?"

 

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
449
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
468
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

468 Views
Message 275 of 1,056

Since vitamin D and bone health is now the topic, understand that many dentists who support fluoridation are coming to understand that bone health is compromised when people are treated with fluoride as in water fluoridation. Here for example are statements in one J Dental Res. article:

 

“While NaF may increase bone mass, the newly formed bone appears to lack normal structure and strength (Carter and Beaupre, 1990Riggs et al., 1990Søgaard et al., 1994). In trabecular bone, fluoride results in an increase in bone volume and trabecular thickness without a concomitant increase in trabecular connectivity (Aaron et al., 1991). It is this lack of trabecular connectivity that reduces bone quality despite the increase in bone mass. These observations in humans have been extended in rodents (Søgaard et al., 1995Turner et al., 1995)” from:

Fluoride’s Effects on the Formation of Teeth and Bones, and the Influence of Genetics

E.T. Everett, J Dent Res. 2011 May; 90(5): 552–560.

 

Notice that since fluoridation is not halted, dentists believe that poor quality bone is a side effect that one must accept in order to treat teeth. This of course is nonsense since fluoridation of people does not affect dental caries in the first place.

 

So what pray tell are we supposed to tell seniors who failthfully consume artificially fluoridated  water their entire life and develop bone and joint pain issues in later years? A fluoridaitonist might  falsely proclaim something like: at least you didn't have as many dental caries, and fluoridation is low level so in spite of the accumulation of it in bone, the pain must be caused by something else, but if fluoride accumulation in bone is involved, then that is a side effect of us helping your teeth so live with it--otherwise you would be depriving children of proper dental care.

 

Scientists and rational people could say: we've tried to halt the fluoridation of your bones since some experience pain even at about 1,700 ppm in bone, the concentration of fluoride in toothpaste which is achieved in people consuming fluoride water for 20 years, but a government recommended program is difficult to stop, we're very sorry. The SDWA was supposed to halt the spread of fluoridation but judges in courts and fluoride promoters have allowed exceptions for fluoridation. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
468
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
493
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

493 Views
Message 276 of 1,056

Vitamin D fights dental decay (see the Linus Pauling publications). Fluoride does not, as revealed by the Teotias; by Ziegelbecker; and Yiamouyiannis; and Sutton; and the CA NIDR study, etc. And why would one believe it could when it is only 0.016 ppm in saliva when consuming fluoridated water?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
493
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
487
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

487 Views
Message 277 of 1,056

Vitamin D fights dental decay (see the Linus Pauling publications). Fluoride does not, as revealed by the Teotias; by Ziegelbecker; and Yiamouyiannis; and Sutton; and the CA NIDR study, etc. And why would one believe it could when it is only 0.016 ppm in saliva when consuming fluoridated water?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
487
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
483
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

483 Views
Message 278 of 1,056

Fluoride is not a vitamin. In fact fluoride opposes the chief function of vitamin D, so the analogy is ludicrous.  Vitamin D is essential for proper assimilation of calcium, to build strong bones and teeth.

Yes, calcium builds strong bone and teeth, not fluoride. Fluoride instead incorporates pathologically  into bone and alters its crystal structure, forming bone of poor quality as it accumulates irreversibly during lifelong ingestion.  

Fluoride is thus an anathema to bone health, while vitamin D is essential for it.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
483
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
477
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

477 Views
Message 279 of 1,056

"Carry Anne," you have misquoted me.  Your quote:  "It is easy enough for anyone to decline milk with or without vitamin D when there is a medical reason to avoid it, or simply because they dislike it, or if milk is contrary to their religion. Every classroom teacher knows she has a duty to protect her pupils from various exposures per parental instructions."  

 

 In my example I was not informed that my child was drinking milk with Vitamin D added.  And you have shown, by your response, that this would be some kind of a big deal.  If the kid is lactose intollerant, that's one thing.  But using your logic, the problem is the kid getting a healthy dose of Vitamin D.  

 

By your odd logic, it would be inappropriate to feed a kid a healthy diet rich in fiber, .  .  no beans, no fresh vegatibles, no apples, certainly no cranberry juice, because these things might lead to a healthy digestive system and really good bowel movements.  

 

According to the Mayo Clinic, "A high-fiber diet may also help reduce the risk of obesity, heart disease and diabetes."  https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/high-fiber-foods/...

 

Feeding a child a healthy high fiber diet has medical consequences.

 

Using your logic, this would be a violation of human rights to force my child to reduce his risk of heart disease and diabetes by forcing him to eat healthy food.   

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
477
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
476
Views

Re: Several questions

476 Views
Message 280 of 1,056

RandyJ, this is interesting. 

 

Your quote:  " a 2016 “petition” to the American Thyroid Association prepared by anti-F activist, KSpencer, that exposes the anti-F tactics.  The petition “suggests” the ATA “Publish a position statement opposing the practice of community water fluoridation…” and provides a not-so-subtile suggestion of potential consequences of ignoring the petition . . "

 

That is interesting, isn't it.  These same people, "Carry Anne," for example, "Demanding" that the AARP do the same thing.  

 

We can only hope that laymen who have been trained at the University of Google not be allowed to hijack proven health initiatives.  It is a frightening thought.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
476
Views