From retirement calculators to free tax assistance, AARP has the member benefits you need. Explore today.

Reply
Gold Conversationalist
3
Kudos
158
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

158 Views
Message 21 of 394

Sorry. I recall now the original message was not sent because The Skagway library wifi did not allow full access to the AARP site.

I arrive home Tuesday and would have access to a computer instead of fingerling a cell phone 

I don't think any officials who could change city fluoridation are reading this anyway. 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
158
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
159
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

159 Views
Message 22 of 394

 Im in Tacoma now. It was posted when in Skagway AK so that was on 8/14.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
159
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
155
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

155 Views
Message 23 of 394

RS:  "I answered the math argument earlier. Please read it."

 

Response:  Please provide the timestamp of that comment so that I may read it.  I must have missed it.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
155
Views
Gold Conversationalist
3
Kudos
154
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

154 Views
Message 24 of 394

I've discussed the poisonings with scientists still here. Dr. krook has passed  away. I answered the math argument earlier. Please read it.

Altitude may have been  a factor too but F use in extremely soft water is the more significant problem.

calculating the discharged F level after full dilution is  simplistic. there is no math formula that describes the dilution dynamics of a substance dumped into a solution. It does not dilute from 1 down to 0.2 in an instant.

I teach math in college and i assure you there are vast cases  where math is used improperly and with incorrect assumptions. False conclusions backed up with improper math is very common. Computing what the level will be after it dilutes into the volume of water flowing during the  infusion period does not indicate the actual level salmon are exposed to while approaching the discharge pipe section.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
154
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
173
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

173 Views
Message 25 of 394

Dr. Sauerheber, you're back.  

 

Then you are saying that Dr. Bill is wrong.  Elevation had nothing to do with Cathy Justus' horse & 4 dogs dying.  Correct?  It would be great if your anti-fluoride doctors could get your science to agree, wouldn't it.

 

By the way.  You had made the outrageous claim that the salmon industry in Sacramento, CA was ruined because the City began to fluoridate its drinking water.  When I asked you to prove it, you said that it couldn't be proved.

 

Similar claims had been made about the Columbia River in Oregon.  Mr. Joe Carroll had proved that this was impossible using a simple mathematical formula.  I posted his letter & his mathmatics in an earlier comment, and you had read them.  

 

This is how you prove that salmon were killed in Sacramento by fluoridated water discharge.  Use the same mathmatics as Mr. Carroll used.  Determine the speed of the Sacramento River in cfs.  You would multiply that number x 7.48 to determine gps.  You would multiply that number by 8.34 to determine weight which would be needed for a simple determination of how much actual chemical was being discharged using 0.6 ppm F at discharge which Mr. Carroll used, (although I felt his number was high, since he didn't account for dilution from infiltration).  After that, you would determine city discharge of effluent at the time of the salmon collapse.  Since you are familiar with Sacramento, a simple check of water records would provide that.  You would have to determine the background fluoride in the river.  A simple upstream check, found in California Department of Environmental Quality would have that.  You already know that salmon are sensitive to fluoride at 0.5 ppm F.  After that it is a simple matter of addition to prove that salmon were indeed harmed by effluent discharge.  

 

That should be simple enough for a chemist with your credentials.  Mr. Carroll easily proved that discharge in Oregon was not harmful to salmon using that same formula.  Have you done the math yet, since you seem so hell-bent on proving that community water fluoridation somehow harms the environment?  If not?  Why not?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
173
Views
Gold Conversationalist
2
Kudos
161
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

161 Views
Message 26 of 394

Other Pagosa ranchers were on well water. The analysis by fluoride toxicologist Dr. Krook was accurate. .

The justus's moved there from CA and had no Idea use of city water for livestock could be harmful. It is always  prevailing conditions that need to be considered

This reminds me of a local F supporter on the water board who said don't worry when we start Fluoridating. It won't affect water quality and you can't taste it. I merely asked if it doesn't affect water quality then why would you add it? He did have a conscience and he resigned from the board, knowing he couldn't change the policy. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
161
Views
Gold Conversationalist
2
Kudos
171
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

171 Views
Message 27 of 394

Sorry but the LA racehorses at Hollywood Park and Los Alamitos board at the track full time. most their entire life after delivery from breeders. Louisville Churchill Downs has no such facility. I visited there. Horses only visit for their race and they are sent back to pasture. One must not generalize. 

The Pagosa springs problem is the water there has virtually no calcium to impede fluoride assimilation (less than 5 ppm)  . Down river the water picks up significant calcium. also the Justus horses drank from a metal trough where water was  present for long time periods. Fluoridated soft water leaches metal ions from such materials. 

In Alaska it also appears that fluoridated  water will never be dumped into any stream or river where salmon spawn. The city knows such discharges would be crazy. 

 So the Sacramento river type collapse will be less acute there. The salmon have disappeared in numerous waterways in the Seattle area. Seattle has long fluoridated surrounding towns and F enters the waters where salmon years ago would spawn. 

Direct discharging is in my opinion the final straw that collapsed the salmon industry in sacramento  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
171
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
179
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

179 Views
Message 28 of 394

“They have no conscience, no compassion about the people who are being made ill by fluoride, and they have no social responsibility. It’s purely an ‘I’m all right Jack’ situation – ‘it’s just business’. And they’ll gas-light the people by saying, ‘No no, it’s good for your teeth’ – when really what they’re saying is, ‘Shut up and don’t stop my cash-flow’.” - Thomas Sheridan, author of ‘Puzzling People: The Labyrinth Of The Psychopath’ (2017)

 

As I said, I speak for myself. I have no relationship with Dr. Mercola and my relationship with the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) which is only one of common goals began after over a year of being accused by an international troop of trolls of copying from FAN when I was doing my own research and writing my own words primarily in my own local newspaper. Again, there is no difference between an advocacy group or an activist group as they are both motivated by points of view and my interest is based in scientific evidence and ethics. Behavior of group membership and integrity are other matters. My research aligns me with FAN because that is where, based on my analysis and experience, my moral compass pointed me. 

 

As to who financially gains from fluoridation policy, they are too numerous to list but include fluoridated toothpaste manufacturers and fluoridation marketeers hired to create astroturf materials for social media fluoride-trolls.  

 

Then there are the dentists whose big bucks are earned from treating dental fluorosis. I don't believe most dentists intentionally support fluoridation for this purpose. Most are either ignorant or willfully blind. Others are either cowed into silence per my previous comments or are indeed sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks.

 

Thankfully, many dentists who include Dr. Bill Osmunson, Dr. Hardy Limeback and Dr. David Kennedy have had the professional courage to speak out openly despite the pressures brought to bear on them by dental organizations and their peers. Regardless, the facts per the images below are self evident. 

 

AAPastroturf.jpg2017 Job Post for 3 New HiresDFwQuotes.jpg

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
179
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
154
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

154 Views
Message 29 of 394

This is all baseless scare-mongering, plain and simple.  But what motivation would the anti-water fluoridation folks have to push a scare-mongering agenda?  Let’s look at some facts.

 

It is a fact that the Fluoride Action Network, the energy behind this scare-mongering, is part of Mercola’s Health Liberty conglomerate.  (And please, correct me if any of these things are wrong.)

 

It is a fact that Mercola makes millions of dollars every year selling expensive Alternative Health products as well as expensive fluoride free toothpaste . . really expensive in home water filter systems . . fluoride de tox, fluoride free oral health care, expensive shower filter heads . . you know, stuff that people would want to buy if they were afraid of fluoride.

 

It is a fact that Mercola has already received 4 warning letters from the FDA for unethical sales behavior.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola#FDA_warning_letters

 

It is a fact that Mercola funnels money to the Fluoride Action Network through the nonprofit American Environmental Health Studies Project. https://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html

 

And it is a fact that the more paranoia the Fluoride Action Network generates about fluoride and strictly regulated safe tap water, the more stuff Mercola sells.

 

Is any of that incorrect?  If not, then please connect the dots.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
154
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
183
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

183 Views
Message 30 of 394

"...the political profluoridation stance has evolved in to a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues." - Dr. Edward Groth, III, Senior Scientist at Consumer Union, WHO/FAO Expert on Science and Ethics in Food Safety (1991) 

 

"Politics makes strange bedfellows." - Unknown 

 

Threats, whether overt or veiled, like ad hominem attacks have no place in scientific debate. I have experienced both from fluoridationists, including on this AARP forum thread. That is not to say that I agree with every word spoken by every other person opposed to fluoridation. On the other side, the logical fallacies which include strawmen misrepresentation of historical and scientific facts as well as ad hominem attacks favored by fluoridationists are neither science nor justification for fluoridation. 

 

However, these rhetorical distractions have nothing to do with either factual modern fluoride science or the immorality of using municipal water supplies to deliver uncontrollable doses of a drug which is medically contraindicated for many senior citizens

 

OPEN ACCESS MODERN SCIENTIFIC REVIEW: 

Peckham S, Awofeso N. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. The Scientific World Journal, Vol. 2014, Article ID 293019.
 https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/ 

 

Mark Diesendorf. The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay. Nature. 07/1986; 322(6075):125-9 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/19639179 

 

POLITICAL INTIMIDATION

"Fluoridation: breaking the silence barrier" by Mark Diesendorf. Published in Confronting the Experts (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996), pp. 45-75. 

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/96ce/3_Diesendorf.pdf  

 

2014 Interview with Dr. Diesendorf on fluoridationist politics which suppresses science unfavorable to fluoridation policy. This talk specific to doses for infants, another vulnerable population: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxftzkwogVk  

 

REPRINTS:  5 journal articles on the suppression of fluoride science & opponent voices   
http://www.fluoridefreefairbanks.org/Suppression%20of%20Science.html

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
183
Views