Reply
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
640
Views

Re: Cancer and fluoride

640 Views
Message 321 of 1,450

Have those here even read the CA OEHHA report on fluoride and cancer below?

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwj1pO-x-8rgAhVIj54KHV7sC1k...

 

A key finidng is that fluoride transforms (converts normal cells to cancer cells) mammalian tissue cultures. The NRC 2006 Report tried to dismiss these data by claiming it has no relevance to humans. The CA review stated that the effrect has been confirmed repeatedly and that there is no evidence to justify the claim that it is irrelevant to humans..

Knowing how difficult it is to control humans in cages, and that it is not possible to study the possible carcinogenic potential of fluoide over lifelong time periods, to determine whether fluoride is carcinogenic or not, the serious effect proven in cultured mamalian cells is far too troubling to be laughed off. .

The Yiamouyiannis data was considered in the report and also in the CDC ATSDR full report 2003. No one can disprove it though many have tried, where fluoride inhibitis the immune system in fighting cancer and increases cancer morlality when it is present.

Get the crap out of our water..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
640
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
642
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

642 Views
Message 322 of 1,450

I can not see the relevance of Mullenix's fluorosilicic acid paper anyway. It had nothing new in it - analyses of this compound are made and reported all the time as part of the required certification of purity. Her paper just seemed to be pointless except for getting something under the belt - and providing something for the religious anti-fluoride brigade which likes to have a limited selection of ideologically approved papers to use.

I have looked at many such analyses for New Zealand and Australia. Comparing our data with hers I would say the fluorosilicic acid used in New Zealand and Australia has a lower heavy metal content - the purity is probably a result of separation if the volatile heavy metal fluorides during manufacture of superphosphate.

The real critical thing is what the heavy metal concentrations mean when diluted into the final drinking water and how does this result compare with the heavy metal contaminants already present in the pure source water.

My calculations indicate, for New Zealand, the fluoridating chemical contributes less than 1% of the heaving metal contaminants in drinking water - the over 99% comes from the source water.


https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/06/12/chemophobic-scaremongering-much-ado-about-absolutely-...

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
642
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
578
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

578 Views
Message 323 of 1,450

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
1
Kudos
578
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
572
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

572 Views
Message 324 of 1,450

Richard, I'm just going to come out and say this.  Either you are being purposely untruthful, or you lack the ability to comprehend the written word.

 

You write:   "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" 

 

Let's do this again, because proving you wrong is just too easy.  WHERE IN THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT DOES IT SAY THAT?

 

(P.S.  Maybe if you say it enough, it might become true.)

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
572
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
545
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

545 Views
Message 325 of 1,450

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.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
545
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
543
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

543 Views
Message 326 of 1,450

Dr. Bill, your quote:  

 

"David,

We have probably been far to scientific and intellectual.  

You have built your faith and trust like a religious fanatic."

 

Response:  Bill, I completely agree that belief should not be based on faith alone.  Evidence is required. 

 

You said, "Can you guess what chemical they used to CAUSE the cancer to test their drug?

You guessed it.  SODIUM FLUORIDE."  ‎02-19-2019 11:57 AM

 

So, rather than just taking your word for it, like a religious fanatic would, please provide some evidence to support your comment.  I think KenP has asked you 3 or 4 times for a reference.  Is there some reason you can't answer his simple question - that you support your own statement with evidence?

 

And it is interesting that you compare people who just believe things without evidence to religious fanatics because right after you made your comment, with no supporting evidence, Sirpac said,

 

"Wow! Thank you for this insight, Dr. Osmunson!
Sodium fluoride, and probably other fluorides as well, are the chosen means to cause artificial cancer in test animals."   02-19-2019 01:05 PM

 

Are you saying Sirpac is like a religious fanatic?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
543
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
514
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

514 Views
Message 327 of 1,450

Dr. Richard, could you tell me how many samples of fluosilicic acid Phyllis Mullenix tested?  I am curious how comprehensive her analysis was.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
514
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist
1
Kudos
504
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

504 Views
Message 328 of 1,450

Ken P.,

Still referring to pages C-104 to C-111 of https://archive.epa.gov/region03/dclead/web/pdf/91229.pdf

 

 

Your comment, “ I also note that the report describes fluoropyromorphite as "rare" and the Chloro and Hydroxy analogues as "common."

end your comment

 

 

Where in the report is this statement?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
504
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
516
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

516 Views
Message 329 of 1,450

David,

 

We have probably been far to scientific and intellectual.  

 

You have built your faith and trust like a religious fanatic.  

 

What dosage of fluoride is optimal for reducing dental caries?

 

What dosage of fluoride are people ingesting?

 

Very simple questions for the foundation of fluoride supplementation.

 

Hierarchical evidence is a house of cards.  Answer those two questions and the house of cards falls over.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
516
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
500
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

500 Views
Message 330 of 1,450

Phyllis Mullenix and others have analyzed samples of fluosilicic acid for toxic metal content and for radioactive nuclides, etc.  and their presence is significant. 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 and 2) adding anything into water that is an EPA listed contaminant above its Maximum contaminant level MCL  So the fluosilicic acid additions are illegal. 1) They are endorsed and requested by the CDC.

Fluoridationists argue this legal because the final diluted level for arsenic and lead would be below the MCL of 15 ppb each from the preparations after dilution. But the problem is that some cities already have arsenic and lead contaminant issues near the EPA MCL. Fluoridation then puts that over the top and would be illegal even for those critics, but they ignore it anyway, In Carlsbad the EPA limit for lead was exceedced after fluoridation mostly because of the silicic acid that leaches lead from oxidized lead plumbing fixtures. The city said: too bad, it's not our fault because the lead leaving the water district is below the MCL. So it's your fault.

So fluoridationists have never had any intention of actually following our safe water laws.

The Toxic Substance Control Act forbids intentionally adding ANY toxic material into water supplies at ANY concentration (other than the exceptions made in the SDWA for agents that sanitize the water). This prohibits anyone from concluding the SDWA allows them to 'fill er up" with arsenic and lead as long as the final level is below the EPA MCL.

But fluoridationists don't care about following water laws or their intent. In fact, late additions were inserted into the SDWA to allow exceptions for fluoridation that were never part of the original statutes approved by Congress. Fluoridationists will not follow any law if it means they would need to give up fluoridation. They have their agenda and erroenous belief system, and that is that.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
500
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users