Content starts here
CLOSE ×
Search
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

“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

  1. 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
     
  2. 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.😞 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
    2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 

  3. 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

  4. 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); 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
    2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf

  5. 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. 

 

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

  1. 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 
    1. 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 
  2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
    1. 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.” 
  3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
    1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 
    2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
    3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/ 
    4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
    6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

 

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

380,576 Views
1518
Report
4 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS
Bronze Conversationalist

"The National Toxicology Program on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication."Brenda Balletti, PhD, March 16, 2023 

 

“The only reason we were able to get Kumar’s emails is because he’s a government official who is subject to Freedom of Information requests. It raises the question of what else we would learn if the emails of private actors, like the PR strategists who Kumar works with, were also accessible.” - Michael Connett, J.D. in  "Researchers Hid Data Showing Fluoride Lowers Kids’ IQs, Emails Reveal” by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. (May 30. 2023)

 

It took long enough, what with the political machinations of bad actors, but the final phase of the lawsuit brought by the Food & Water Watch et al. v. EPA for its failure to adhere to the regulations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) specific to the evidence of developmental neurotoxicity when exposure is pre- or post-natal even in low doses consistent with 'optimally' fluoridated city water will be heard (barring a government shutdown) between Jan 31-Feb 14, 2024. This is a historic trial because it is the first time that the EPA has been brought to task for failure to protect 'susceptible sub-populations' like infants under TSCA.

 

As previously noted in this thread, the brain damage to infants resulting in cognitive-behavioral deficits like more learning disabilities, lower IQ and behavioral problems is also noted in adults who have consumed fluoridated water for decades, resulting in dementia and other neuro-degenerative conditions. 

 

Additionally, kidney disease, arthritis, degenerative disc disease, brittle bones, etc. are caused by or exasperated by fluoridated water and foods prepared with that water. 

 

However, this month's "Fluoride on Trial" is only looking at the very high quality evidence of brain damage in the very young. For a preview of what is going on, see: 

 

 

Also out this month, a pdf detailing the pattern of fraud at the CDC which  benefits itself and its partners in the fluoride deception:

 

 

For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 

 

View solution in original post

44,752 Views
35
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Your brain doesn’t need fluoride. Your thyroid gland doesn’t need fluoride. Your bones don’t need fluoride. The only part of your body that may benefit from fluoride are your teeth. And you can get the fluoride to your teeth through a very simple, elegant mechanism. You put it in toothpaste, you brush it on and you spit it out.” - Michael Connett, J.D., partner at Waters Kraus & Paul (2024) 

 

 “The controversy about fluoridation was inevitable because fluoridation was, in a real sense, conceived in sin. Fluoride is a major waste product of industry and one of the most devastating pollutants of the aluminum industry. The government not only dismissed the danger and left industry free to pollute, but it has promoted the intentional addition of fluoride - most of which is recycled industrial waste - to the nation’s drinking water.” - Prof. Albert Schatz  (1995)

 

If you or anyone in your family have thyroid or kidney disease, bone spursspondylosis, arthritis or any other bone disease watch this documentary. If you or anyone in your family has cataracts, learning disabilities or a degenerative neurological disease like dementia, watch this documentary. 

 

They knew in the 1940s and 1950s that fluoride caused a range of disease, and they know today. Fluoridation stakeholders who included some criminal medical and legal actors promoted it then, and similarly compromised players promote fluoridation now and for the same reason - it is profitable. Power, prestige and paychecks hinge on fluoridation policy. 

 

WATCH "Fluoride on Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health"

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/fluoride-on-trial-the-censored-science-on-fluo...

 

MODERN SCIENCEhttps://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/science 

View solution in original post

43,496 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

NTP Scientific Director Tells The Defender What He Couldn’t Tell the Court

EPA Paid Expert Witness $137,000 to Testify in Landmark Fluoride Trial

Fluoride Expert Squares Off Against EPA on Day 1 of Landmark Trial

 

My goodness! It has been an exciting ride. The witness testimony in the #FluorideTrial has ended, but closing arguments will be heard on Tuesday 2/20/2024. 

 

Plaintiff witnesses were wonderful, and were not shaken by EPA Counsel. The Defense witnesses were another matter. 

 

Not only did David Savitz clearly and several times state that neither he nor the NASEM committee he chaired to review the 2019-200 early drafts of the NTP report dispute the NTP conclusions or fault the NTP methods, he articulated that the NASEM group only felt the communication should have been clearer. Right there, that's a big win. But there is more. Savitz: 

  • Admitted he knows little about fluoride science and hadn't read that much
  • Misrepresented the findings of several studies (called out on cross examination as wrong)
  • Claimed there is no sex difference associated with neurotoxins which makes him question those studies (cross examination pointed to toxicology texts confirming sex differences are common; Savitz excused his error by saying he hadn't read them because he is not a toxicologist)
  • Admitted that he pulls in big bucks as an "expert" - including for the Telecom Industry which he repeatedly brought up. His rate is $500 hr and he has earned well over $100k in this trial
  • Recently sat on a panel for Health Canada concerning fluoridation policy with two other paid fluoridation shills. Health Canada apparently had no problems with the obvious conflict of interests 
  • Received multimillion dollar grants from pro-fluoridation sources like NIDCR. 

 

Then there was the officious Brian Barone of the EPA who bored us all to tears with his complicated descriptions of processes. His primary job seems to have been to confuse the judge with meaningless drivel. Barone claimed he: 

 

  • Can't do a scientifically justifiable risk assessment because of all the uncertainty
  • Believes there is "something there" (a neurotoxic effect), but won't determine what it is until there is more precise science for him to begin his calculations
  • Pulled a  couple of "Bill Clintons" when he claimed "Health Protective" can mean different things and retorted to Plaintiff Counsel "depends on how you define 'plausible'" in his defense of a bizarre study that contrary to every other study found that boys drinking fluoridated water have 21 point higher IQs  
  • Judges that the NTP and all the other scientists did things wrong, that as the EPA "Director of Integrity" only he knows the right way to do science
  • Attributes levels of fluoride in the urine of 3rd trimester women living in fluoridated communities as probably largely due to their kidneys being oversaturated with fluoride and therefor unable to process it appropriately. 

 

When Plaintiff Counsel asked Barone if he was "comfortable" with the kidneys of pregnant women being oversaturated with fluoride, Barone gulped and said, "My comfort level is not germane to the issue.

 

Really!!!!! 

 

Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 

 

Judge Chen is reviewing taped deposition testimony on that bizarre outlier study prior to asking a few more questions of counsel and hearing closing arguments scheduled on Tuesday, Feb 20th. It'll take a couple of weeks to get a ruling, and then there is always the option of appeal. Stay tuned. 

 

aaa.jpg

View solution in original post

35,173 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

 Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL  includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week: https://unite.live/widgets/4142/recording/player#  

 

It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.

 

Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines. 

 

When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge. 

 

Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case. 

 

On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment. 

 

Really? 

 

Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.  

 

BMCLBMCL

 

But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand: 

  • No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease. 

 

 

View solution in original post

31,051 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.
5,926 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.
6,077 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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?

0 Kudos
5,871 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“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. 

 

2017 Job Post for 3 New Hires2017 Job Post for 3 New HiresDFwQuotes.jpg

6,177 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"...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

 

 

 

 

 

6,216 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

0 Kudos
6,151 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"Repeating a lie over and over does not make it true, but it is the foundation of both propaganda and marketing." - Unknown

 

”It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

 

At least four of the six groups JJ mentions who endorse fluoridation, CDC, ADA, AAP and WHO, are not only endorsing their own 1950s policy, they have budgets and paychecks connected to fluoridation promotion. I'll never forget one WHO paper I read where the references of that glowing recommendation were other opinion statements. If I remember correctly, 16 of those references were by the main author (a WHO dentist) and 8 by his co-author. Didn't Shakespeare write something along these lines in a few of his plays?  

 

For those of you who'd like to read the 60 comments from about 20 seniors supporting an AARP resolution against fluoridation policy, I suggest you read in chronological order rather than trying to plow through the hundreds of windy comments generated by the half dozen fluoridation promoters who descended on this thread on June 27, 2018. Just click the 'previous' button to advance thorugh the pages of comments begun by the initial February 2015 entry. 

 

You might also want to check out recent opposition statements from this century written by a few of the dozen or so reputable organizations opposed to fluoridation: 

 

 

  1. International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT): https://iaomt.org/wp-content/uploads/IAOMT-Fluoride-Position-Paper.pdf

  2. American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM): https://www.aaemonline.org/chemicalsensitivity.php

  3. Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ): http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/gibbs-2015.pdf

  4. Sierra Club: http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/policy-fluoride-drinking-water

  5. League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC): http://lulac.org/advocacy/resolutions/2011/resolution_Civil_Rights_Violation_Regarding_Forced_Medica...

 

BTW: The Mayo Clinic like most hospitals has published words to the effect of 'Early researchers had it backwards. Fluoride works topically on teeth after they've erupted.' This in response to modern science and a 1999 CDC admission. In other words, brush with the stufff if you want. It is an enzyme poison so will inhibit cavity causing bacteria, but spit don't swallow

 

"...laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children." - CDC MMWR. October 22, 1999

6,259 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Excuse me but the entire tower bridge across the sacramento river in the city and the banked shore lines is only 700 feet long. Have you ever been to Sacramento? Have you seen the massive discharge pipe that dumps wastewater into the river just south of town?

There exist people in government who are unable to protect our rivers from discharged wastewater but who know full well it is insane and immoral to use a river as a waste dump. The colorado River south of Laughlin has a similar problem where city wastewater is discharged directly into it. I disagree with the practice and so do some people on the Colorado River board but no one can do anything  about it. The city of needles just has to deal with it. One can see the river water quality deteriorate and no one skis there. soap suds line the river banks downstream of  the discharge pipe. Dumping F into the waste pipe would simply add to the problem. CA is not  MI. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,551 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

I'm boarding the ship now in Alaska and will be unavailable for some time. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
6,517 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

  • I am a chemist, a scientist, not a used car salesman.. No scientist knows everything, including me. It is not possible to prove that the F discharges caused the collapse that happened after the discharges began. I'm not God. One possibility is it was a coincidence, but the explanation that F was not involved and instead it was a drought is not reasonable And is unproven as well, for example Droughts  are not permanent and yet he salmon industry has  been devastated there since F discharges began. It is possible that salmon could return to normal strength some year in the future when imprinting for the few left might reestablish to the new conditions. I don't know. But all past droughts did nor eliminate the industry because they are not always present. If the drought were that had the reduced water flow volume  would concentrate the F level even higher. All this is not provable and i have mad my deduction. There was no drought of such an unusual extent to cause the total longstanding collapse. I've presented the information to the state fisheries management officials  that is my civic duty to do. You or anyone else who promotes the wonder substance fluoride that somehow helps teeth enamel, the hardest substance in the human body, and yet after swallowing somehow at the same time  cannot harm ie adversely affect any other tissue in the body, cN argue what you wish. 
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,485 Views
16
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

RS:  “I am a chemist, a scientist, not a used car salesman..”

Response:  Good, then you should know how to do math.

 

RS:  “ It is not possible to prove that the F discharges caused the collapse that happened after the discharges began.”

Response:  Sure it is.  First determine the flow of the Sacramento River when the salmon industry collapsed.  Then determine effluent discharge per day.  Joe Carroll used a fluoride level of 0.6 ppm F for effluent, and I think that’s fair.  He was quite right that partial removal from solid waste would have lowered the level.  Moreover, he didn’t account for storm water and other run off infiltration, which would have lowered it more.  We know that salmon are sensitive to 0.5 ppm F.  From that, it is a simple math calculation. 

 

So when you say it is not possible to prove that the F discharges caused the collapse of the salmon industry, my response would be that Failure of Simple Arithmetic should be an Embarrassment!

 

You’ve got a theory that can be proven or disproven with a simple math calculation.  Math doesn’t lie.  Used car salesmen lie.

 

We don’t see math and science from you, we see excuses:  “It is not possible to prove that the F discharges caused the collapse that happened after the discharges began.”  And you say you are a chemist?

  

One more thing:

" Pollution from farms and urban areas took a heavy toll on the river's environment, and heavy irrigation withdrawals sometimes resulted in massive fish kills.  Since 1960, when the big pumps at the head of the California Aquaduct in the Delta began their operation, the pattern of water flow in the Delta has been changed considerably leaving the fish confused as to where to go, resulting in many generations dying off because they have not been able to find their way upstream. In 2004, only 200,000 fish were reported to return to the Sacramento; in 2008, a disastrous low of 39,000.

 

"In 1999, five hydroelectric dams on Battle Creek, a major tributary of the Sacramento River, were removed to allow better passage of the fish. Three other dams along the creek were fitted with fish ladders. The river is considered one of the best salmon habitats in the watershed because of its relatively cold water and the availability of ideal habitat such as gravel bars"

 

“By the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the government blamed crashing fish populations on overfishing, especially off the Northern California and Oregon coast, which lie directly adjacent to the migration paths of Sacramento River salmon. This has resulted in a ban on coastal salmon fishing for several years since 2002.  The Red Bluff Diversion Dam, although not a large dam and equipped with fish passage facilities, also presents a major barrier. Because of inadequate design, roughly 25–40% of the incoming fish get blocked by the dam each year. The dam has also become a "favorite spot" for predatory fish to congregate, feasting on the salmon that get trapped both above and below the dam.  As of 2010, the salmon run has shown slight signs of improvement, probably because of that year's greater precipitation.”

 

So, as of 2010, the salmon population began to rebound.  Did fluoridation decrease in 2010?

 

6,537 Views
15
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

Try resonding without personal attacks.  Would be more readable, credible and scientific.

 

I have been busy and not had a chance to read all the postings here.  Would you be so kind as to repost your response to my questions:

 

1.     How do we know when people are ingesting too much fluoride?  With 60% of adolescents showing signs of dental fluorosis, 20% with moderate/severe, when should my public health profession reduce exposure?

 

2.     What concentration of fluoride in the tooth shows lower dental caries?

 

3.    Over 50 human studies, several at low levels of fluoride in water, and over 200 animal studies report developmental neurotoxicity/neurotoxicity of fluoride.  What evidence refutes those studies?

 

When it comes to "safety," prospective randomized controlled trials are not ethical.  For example, there are no high quality studies measuring the effects of jumping off a 10 story building.  Would simply not be ethical.  My point, in case you miss it, safety studies are more complex and judgment must be used.  

 

With so many ingesting too much fluoride, the developmental neurotoxicity studies become alarming.

 

4.  High quality prospective randomized controled trials on efficacy of fluoride ingestion can be done.  What primary high quality studies can you provide which demonstrate efficacy.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

6,348 Views
14
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill,

 

Just so we are clear here, I haven’t been making any claims.  If you can find something in my comments which you feel is factually incorrect, please bring it to my attention and I will be more than happy to defend it . . unlike yourself.

 

These people, yourself included, are “Demanding” that the AARP take action against community fluoridation.  In your efforts, you all have made some pretty astonishing claims. 

 

I have simply been asking you to supply evidence of some of your claims, which I find, frankly, unbelievable.  You are the ones making the “Demands” here.  And you’re the ones who are trying to make the case to support your “Demand.”  

 

You are the one who is supposed to be the expert.  You’re the Doctor.  I’m not here to answer your questions.  I’m here ask you for evidence of some things I’m reading from you that I just don’t believe.  Frankly, and this is just my opinion, I believe you have been trying to hood-wink the AARP to get them to support your fringe position. 

 

 You can distract and raise other issues all you want, but the bottom line is, I believe you are making false claims and I am offering you the opportunity to support your stories with evidence. On the other hand, if you can defend some of your odd claims with valid evidence, that would be great. 

 

When we left off:  After I stated, factually, that there is not one reputable scientific or health organization which opposes water fluoridation, you provided a list of countries which do not fluoridate their water, and of course, countries are not reputable scientific organizations. 

 

In defense of your list, you said, “Each of the countries I listed have agencies which determine whether a substance is effective and safe at a specific dosage.  They have looked and evaluated the science and primary evidence and rejected fluoridation.”  End quote.  07-27-2018 11:56 AM 

 

In response to that, I asked you:  “Then you will be kind enough to provide links to the Danish, Norwegian, and Finnish government peer-reviewed studies which find that optimally fluoridated water is harmful.”   ‎07-27-2018 02:48 PM

 

I also asked you for the Hungarian government agency’s peer-reviewed study that found optimally fluoridated water harmful.  All these countries were included in your list. 

 

I will have to go back and review other claims you had made which you refused to defend, but for now, let’s stay focused and just concentrate on this one. 

 

0 Kudos
6,180 Views
13
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

You make no sense.  

 

You promote, support, additional fluoride exposure and require an impossible moving target of evidence on every aspect.  

 

Science does not have absolute proof of gravity, able to explain exactly why.  Although we don't have absolute proof, I can assure you, I believe gravity exists.   Sometimes absolute proof is not possible and judgment is required.

 

Very simple, there are organizations/countries that endorse adding more fluoride to peoples' diet/lives.  And there are many organizations/countries that do not.  You refuse to accept evidence I provide, so you need to search for yourself.   I can't do your homework for you. Go to pubmed and search.  www.fluoridealert.org has the largest fluoride data base that I'm aware of.  CDC and ADA have their side.  Read both sides of the evidence, not just research which supports your bias.

 

I provided you evidence that the NHANES 2011-2012 reported 60% of adolescents have dental fluorosis, a biomarker of excess fluoride exposure.  20% have moderate/severe.  That, in and of itself must be addressed.    

 

There is no logical, ethical or financial reason to give people fluoride more when they are getting too much.

 

If you want to know more about the various countries which do not support giving people too much fluoride, then contact the countries yourself.  Nothing I provide, quote, reference or say will change your mind.  So do your own investigation.  I have done thousands of hours of investigation and my professional judgment, based on all streams of evidence, is that many are ingesting too much fluoride and the best place to reduce exposure is a cessation of water fluoridation.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

6,289 Views
12
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill, either admit that you were not telling the truth or provide evidence of what you said so that we may move on.

 

To recap:  

After I stated, factually, that there is not one reputable scientific or health organization which opposes water fluoridation, you provided a list of countries which do not fluoridate their water, and of course, countries are not reputable scientific organizations. 

 

In defense of your list, you said, “Each of the countries I listed have agencies which determine whether a substance is effective and safe at a specific dosage.  They have looked and evaluated the science and primary evidence and rejected fluoridation.”  End quote.  07-27-2018 11:56 AM 

 

In response to that, I asked you:  “Then you will be kind enough to provide links to the Danish, Norwegian, and Finnish government peer-reviewed studies which find that optimally fluoridated water is harmful.”   ‎07-27-2018 02:48 PM

 

I also asked you for the Hungarian government agency’s peer-reviewed study that found optimally fluoridated water harmful.  All these countries were included in your list. 

 

AGAIN: You said, as a statement of FACT, that all of these countries who do not fluoridate their water have scientific agencies who "have looked and evaluated the science and primary evidence and rejected fluoridation.”  

 

Well do they or don't they?  If you say they do, you must be aware of these alleged studies conducted by these alleged scientific agencies.  Therefore, it shouldn't be that hard to provide links to these allegted studies which you claim exist.  

 

I'm not asking you to do my homework.  I'm asking you to do your own homework.  It's your story.  

6,362 Views
11
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

97% of Europe is fluoridation free.  

 

You keep saying, " there is not one reputable scientific or health organization which opposes water fluoridation," and I keep responding the undisputed fact that most of Europe does not fluoridate their water.      

 

For example, take the very reputable Dutch Ministry of Health and Welfare and Courts:  

 

“. . . at present the addition of chemicals to drinking water is prohibited by law in the Netherlands. This law came into effect because it was widely perceived that drinking water should not be used as a vehicle for pharmaceuticals. Furthermore, fluoridation of drinking water would conflict with the freedom to choose for natural drinking water. This principle of freedom of choice is considered as an important basic principle in the Netherlands.”

SOURCE: 2007 – RIVM report 270091004/2007 for the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports

 

The link to the full report is at https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/270091004.pdf. The quote is on p. 59.

 

David. . . you seem to not be able to use judgment and keep saying the same thing.  No evidence appears adequate for you and instead you resort to personal attacks.  Please stop.  

 

Even if a person loves the public health intervention of adding fluoride to water, certainly the person should have concerns when most adolescents in the USA show signs of excess fluoride ingestion.  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

0 Kudos
7,038 Views
9
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill, you provided a list of 11 countries which you claimed banned water fluoridation because of scientific evidence produced by scientific organizations within each respective country.

07-21-2018 10:25 PM, & 07-27-2018 11:56 AM 

 

This is your exact quote, copy & pasted here:   “Each of the countries I listed have agencies which determine whether a substance is effective and safe at a specific dosage.  They have looked and evaluated the science and primary evidence and rejected fluoridation.”  

 

You are saying that each of these countries’ scientific agencies have determined that community water fluoridation is neither safe, nor effective, and have rejected water fluoridation for these reasons.  Am I reading your comment correctly?  Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

I was curious about that, so I asked you:

 

 “Then you will be kind enough to provide links to the Danish, Norwegian, and Finnish government peer-reviewed studies which find that optimally fluoridated water is harmful.”   ‎07-27-2018 02:48 PM

 

I also asked you for the Hungarian government agency’s peer-reviewed study that found optimally fluoridated water harmful.  All these countries were included in your list. 

 

In your comment below, you have provided the Dutch Ministry of Health’s statement on water fluoridation.  Correct?  Nothing in the Dutch statement supports your claim that water fluoridation is neither safe, nor effective.  Isn’t that correct?  This organization has rejected CWF based on the philosophical argument of “freedom of choice,” which I would be glad to debate with you after we finish with this. 

 

So, right off the bat, if this is the only example you can provide to support your story, we see that your comment was False.  You weren’t telling the truth.  There is nothing in the Dutch statement which says fluoridation is neither safe nor effective.

 

Hans Moolenburgh, a Dutch quack, convinced his government to end water fluoridation in 1976 using science from the Last Century.  I have seen his video.  In it he tries to prove that optimally fluoridated water causes gastro-intestinal problems in babies.  In it he says, ‘We know that it was the fluoridated water that caused the babies to cry because when we took the bottles away from them they stopped crying.’ (paraphrased), isn’t that correct?  And wasn’t Dutch scientist, Hans Moolenburgh involved in something called chanting cosmic sounds?  Is that correct?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4orQKFrUcsw  I guess he was a quack.

 

Nevertheless, you are correct, I was wrong.  There is One scientific organization in the world which has rejected water fluoridation.  (That still makes you a fringe group in the scientific community.)  The Dutch Ministry of Health was conned in 1976 by Cosmic Sound believer, Dr. Moolenburgh who used science from the last century to make his argument.  But the Dutch Ministry of Health has never stated that community water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective, and they have conducted no studies which suggests this. 

 

Your statement was false.  But I will give you one more opportunity to prove your statement before we end this.  For the last time: 

 

You said, “Each of the countries I listed have agencies which determine whether a substance is effective and safe at a specific dosage.  They have looked and evaluated the science and primary evidence and rejected fluoridation.”  End quote.  07-27-2018 11:56 AM   (BTW, the Dutch Ministry of Health never conducted a study proving CWF was neither safe nor effective.)

 

In response to that, I asked you:  “Then you will be kind enough to provide links to the Danish, Norwegian, and Finnish government peer-reviewed studies which find that optimally fluoridated water is harmful.”   ‎07-27-2018 02:48 PM

 

I also asked you for the Hungarian government agency’s peer-reviewed study that found optimally fluoridated water harmful.  All these countries were included in your list. 

 

Just out of curiosity, do you also believe that chanting Cosmic Sounds will heal you?

7,055 Views
8
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

There are several reasons not to add more fluoride to everyones' diet indiscriminately with uncontrolled dosage (people drink different amounts of F water, F rich food, F rich medication, etc.  

 

Much like whack a mole.   97% of Western Europe does not fluoridate public water, for various reasons depending on who you talk to in that country and not each country agrees on the most powerful issue or "mole" to whack.    

 

Whether one country finds one issue more convincing than another issue is very much like individuals.  My wife finds the contaminants in the fluoridation compounds to be unacceptable.  My mother finds freedom of choice most convincing.  My son-in-law finds the lack of efficacy most convincing, my one daughter finds the harm to animals is most concerning, my other daughter finds the harm to the developing brain as most concerning, a good friend is most concerned with chemically sensitive individuals, another friend is concerned with the adverse effects on the thyroid, and another friend has the most concern for the effects on the mitochondria, while another friend finds the evidence of fluoride causing cancer is of most concern.  

 

You know one of my top concerns. . . like the WHO . . . excess exposure.   Too many people are ingesting too much fluoride as reported by the NHANES 2011-2012, 20% moderate/severe fluorosis.  But the over riding issue for me is combining all streams of evidence. . . all the moles popping their heads up at one time is a huge concern.  

 

Compare fluoride with tobacco.  Not everyone gets lung cancer from smoking tobacco.  Smoking affects different people in different ways.  Some get more periodontal disease, some kidney, some cancer, etc.   Sort of like whack a mole.  Smoking does not cause a single disease, but increases risk for many disesaes.

 

Western science has really just started to get serious researching fluoride's effect on the developing brain.  We are in the infancy of research on the risks of excess fluoride. . .  especially , neurotoxicity; however, 3 to 5 reasonable studies come out every year and the mountain of evidence is crushing.  Most studies have been done in the last few years and, like a snowball, growing and growing.  The smoke is thick and in effect you keep yelling no evidence of fire.  Just give it time and fluoride will be as concerning as excess lead, tobacco, DDT, etc.   

 

Some want to have absolute certainty.  Reminds me of tobacco.  While taking pathology, each disease discussed by the professor mentioned the increased risk from tobacco and second hand tobacco smoke.   Cause is not a simple single effect.  Not everyone has the same sensitivities to fluoride.  A global perspective looking at all the moles is required.  Maybe we should stop whacking moles and find the reasons for so many.  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

0 Kudos
7,069 Views
7
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

We have been commenting under a thread entitled:  “Fluoride – Demand AARP take action.” 

 

“Demand,” that sounds kind of pushy doesn’t it.  But is it?  I don’t think so.  Actually, this “demand” that is being made is quite mild by comparison when placed within the long history anti fluoridation behavior.  Here are a few examples of what I mean:  

 

In the City of Port Angeles, Washington, when a fluoridation vote came up in 2017, local businesses were threatened with being blacklisted if community water fluoridation (CWF) was reinstated.  This is from the news article:

 

“In the letter to Johnson, it (an anonymous flyer) begins with a typed out “Dear” and then has “OWNER H20” in handwriting.

“How much business can you afford to lose?” it asks.

“Are you ready to have your restaurant/hotel/store listed on a handout warning the public that your business serves, makes or treats food items with tainted water?””

http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/news/port-angeles-businesses-get-letter-threatening-blacklisting-o...

 

And again, in a letter dated September 18, 2007, Attorney Robert E. Reeves threatened the National Kidney Foundation with a lawsuit if they did not remove their organization’s name from a list of organizations endorsing and supporting CWF.  The following is an excerpt from that letter: 

 

“NKF and responsible individuals which might include past and present Officers, Board Members and/or employees are named as defendants in anticipated legal action now in development.” . . . .

“Even if it is ultimately determined that neither NKF or any past and present Officers, Board Members and/or employees are liable criminally or for any tort such as negligent misrepresentation this could still be a major financial public relations disaster for NKF which is best handled now rather than later.” 

 

In response, the National Kidney Foundation chose to avoid the financial burden of defending itself against a frivolous lawsuit, a threatened “public relations disaster,” and removed its name from the ADA’s list of organizations which support water fluoridation.  However, the National Kidney Foundation in no way Opposes water fluoridation either.

 

And another example of this behavior, Mrs. Cathy Justus, is a Pagosa Springs, Colorado resident who claimed that her expensive horses & four dogs died as a result of drinking optimally fluoridated water.  (Never mind the fact that the water in Louisville, Kentucky is fluoridated, and the owners of very, very expensive racehorses there allow those horses to drink that water with no harm to them.)

 

In Mrs. Justus’ unbelievably long comment under a post by New Zealand scientist, Dr. Ken Perrott, who looked at the science involved in the Justus story, you will find this in her 15th paragraph:

 

Mrs. Justus wrote, “Our sole goal was to cease fluoridation and we told our municipality that if they did that we would not pursue a lawsuit.”

 

Moreover, according to her, “The public was ready to take them to taks (sic.) on this angle of personal choice and medical mal-practice if they didn’t cease fluoridation. Fluoridation was ceased just week later in 2005.”   https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/06/10/fluoridation-and-horses-another-myth/#comment-70349

 

Again, never mind that this “angle” has been brought before the Supreme Court 13 times, and 13 times the Supreme Court refused to review the arguments for lack of merit.  But she bullied, buffaloed and intimidated the City of Pagosa Springs, and they caved.

 

The mayor of an Australian city was injured when an anti-fluoridationist slammed a car door on her head.  https://www.northernstar.com.au/news/mayor-shaken-by-alleged-assault-after-fluoride-spa/2680776/

 

And again, the Chief Medical Officer in Lismore, Australia was threatened with Sarin gas by an anti-fluoridation group. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-12/fluoride-threat/4953898

 

And this:  Blogger Peter Tierney wrote an opinion piece about a South Australian anti-fluoridationist who sat as a Member of the Legislative Council, Ann Bressington.  Ms. Bressington used her high position to incite death threats against Federal Health Minister Tanya Plibersek by posting a Wanted Poster with bullet holes which read “Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity.”  https://reasonablehank.com/2013/03/05/bressingtonville-just-like-the-movie-ghost/

 

First let me say that in this era of mass killings, this kind of behavior is not only unacceptable, it is irresponsible and it should be criminally punished. 

 

Let me also say that this particularDemand,” this thread under which I am commenting, that the AARP get on board the anti-fluoride train doesn’t even come close, by comparison, to some of the dangerous examples of unhinged thinking and actions of other anti-fluoridationists, which, I’m guessing have been brought about by extreme paranoia, a tendency toward conspiracy theories, and “Google Research.”   

 

On the other hand, this thread is just another, milder expression of the same mindset.  After all, I have been accused of “stalking” simply because I have had the audacity to question the comments of some of these “experts.”  In my opinion, this sort of paranoia is exacerbated by the blatant scare-mongering which has become a specialty of the Fluoride Action Network, or Fluoridealert.   

 

Apparently, readers of these threads are encouraged to accept everything that is being written by these “experts” without questioning a thing.  Does that really sound like an honest way to Demand the AARP to do anything? 

0 Kudos
7,101 Views
5
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

You did an interesting cut and paste.  But you did not carefully examine each item.  Now go back and carefully read the primary research and both sides.  Remember, in a "court" hearing, both sides present their case for the jury to make a judgment decision.  The same holds true for evidence based health care.  Both or all sides need to be carefully evaluated.

 

For about 25 years after dental school, I promoted water fluoridation because I did not spend the time to evaluate both sides.  I even had fluoride added to my bottled water at the office and I spoke up on behalf of fluoridation with cities.  Finally I started to look at the primary research for myself instead of blind belief in the CDC/ADA.  

 

I worked with Port Angeles on their vote to stop fluoridation.  Unfortunately, one or two anonymous people opposed to fluoridation were being harmed and quite hostile.  Although I disagree and we all spread the word to stop that kind of action, one or two spoiled our professional well ballanced presentations.   On the other hand, those promoting fluoridation have done far worse. . . stripping dentists of their licenses to practice dentistry for not following tradition.  But hostile acts are about people, not a way to evaluate facts and scientific evidence. 

 

I don't know about Robert Reeves.  Maybe he was fighting for a client.  Clearly the National Kidney Foundation looked at the science and did not feel they could support fluoridation in a court of law.   Fluoride is hard on fragile kidneys.   Sometimes courts are necessary and I have been told by more than one fluoridationist to take it to court.  We are taking the EPA to court.

 

You bring up another good example of Cathy Justus.  You need to see the video, read the Vet reports and actually look at the evidence rather than cut and paste.  One big flaw in your comment is elevation.  Cathy is very in a very high elevation and apparently, fluoride causes greater harm at higher elevation.  Read the research.  Kentucky is at a much lower elevation.  You say "this angle" has been brought to the Supreme Court 13 times.  I had not heard that.  Can you please give citations/references?

 

You gave some other illustrations of unacceptable behavior and I agree with you.  But I have not carefully looked at the facts of each case.  None of those illustrations have anything to do with science.  

 

Does a person doing a bad act prove that fluoridation is safe and effect?  Does a person slamming a door on someone's hand prove that 60% are not getting too much fluoride?  No.   

 

Your comments are about people, not science.    

 

One study I read, and I don't have time to look it up, was explaining a new drug treatment for cancer and a trial for treatment, which looked promising.  In passing, the authors explained they had given the test animals fluoride to cause cancer so they could test the drug on cancer diseased animals.  

 

For someone to suggest fluoride does not cause cancer is seriously flawed because they have not read the studies for themselves.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

7,314 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill,

 

In my previous comment, I provided a few of the many examples of anti-water fluoridation folks who had threatened & bullied people and organizations.  My feeling is that the mindset behind this extreme behavior is brought about by a tendency toward conspiracy theories and some paranoia which has undoubtedly been exacerbated by the energizing Fluoride Action Network.  I, myself, have been called a “stalker” in these threads simply because I have the audacity to question some of the things which have been written here.

 

Among that list of bullies was one Cathy Justus, of Pagosa Springs, Colorado, who claimed that her horse and 4 dogs were killed by drinking optimally fluoridated water.  She buffaloed the City with the threat of lawsuits and they were indeed intimidated by her.  Your response to that example jumped out at me.  Here it is prefaced by my original comment: 

 

DavidF “Mrs. Cathy Justus, is a Pagosa Springs, Colorado resident who claimed that her expensive horses & four dogs died as a result of drinking optimally fluoridated water.  (Never mind the fact that the water in Louisville, Kentucky is fluoridated, and the owners of very, very expensive racehorses there allow those horses to drink that water with no harm to them.) . . .

“Again, never mind that this “angle” has been brought before the Supreme Court 13 times, and 13 times the Supreme Court refused to review the arguments for lack of merit.  But she bullied, buffaloed and intimidated the City of Pagosa Springs, and they caved.”  (08-17-2018 09:44 PM)

 

Response from BillO:  “You bring up another good example of Cathy Justus.  You need to see the video, read the Vet reports and actually look at the evidence rather than cut and paste.  One big flaw in your comment is elevation.  Cathy is very in a very high elevation and apparently, fluoride causes greater harm at higher elevation.  Read the research.  Kentucky is at a much lower elevation.  You say "this angle" has been brought to the Supreme Court 13 times.  I had not heard that.  Can you please give citations/references?”  (08-17-2018 11:11 PM)

 

I would like to respond to each point in that comment.  “You need to see the video,”

Response:  I’ve seen the video.  That is why I question the fact that for some reason Mrs. Justus’ dogs died from drinking optimally fluoridated water . . yet in almost every major city in the U.S. (except Portland) dog owners are raising healthy happy pets who drink fluoridated water every day.  That seemed odd to me.

 

“. . read the Vet reports and actually look at the evidence rather than cut & paste.”

Response:  Which vet report?  Mrs. Justus went through a multitude of vets before she finally found somebody who told her it was fluoride in the water.  Do you mean that vet report, or the other, more conventional reports that she skipped over?

 

(And this was the best part) BillO:  “One big flaw in your comment is elevation.  Cathy is very in a very high elevation and apparently, fluoride causes greater harm at higher elevation.  Read the research.  Kentucky is at a much lower elevation.”

Response:  Elevation??  Thank you!  You just invalidated the work of your fellow anti-fluoridationist, Dr. Richard Sauerheber, who claimed that optimally fluoridated water was responsible for problems with racehorses in Los Angeles which has an elevation of 285 feet.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286955679_Racehorse_breakdowns_and_artificially_fluoridated...   

 

Dr. Sauerheber must be wrong since Louisville has an elevation of 466 feet, higher than Los Angeles, and horses are not harmed in Louisville.  So they can’t possibly be harmed in Los Angeles, since according to you, “fluoride causes greater harm at higher elevation.”  Maybe you should “read the research” of your fellow anti-fluoridationists . . that way you won’t trip all over yourselves and contradict one another like you just did here.

 

One more thing about your response to those examples of anti-fluoride bullying.  You said, “Your comments are about people, not science.” 

Response:  That’s not exactly right.  While my comments are about the people behind your agenda.  My comments are also about the mindset of people who misrepresent and manipulate the science. 

 

For example, in another AARP thread on this same topic, Dr. Limebeck admitted that he photographed a picture of iron-stained teeth of a patient who had never drank optimally fluoridated water in his life.  The picture was featured in an article by Michael Connett on the Fluoride Action Network, and diagnosed as “Mild Dental Fluorosis.” 

 

Now, to be sure, Mild DF can be associated with optimally fluoridated water.  But as Kumar demonstrated, these teeth are healthier as they are more resistant to decay.  They are characterized by barely noticeable white spots which are usually dried and put under special lighting for the condition to even be photographed.  Mild dental fluorosis does not diminish quality of life.  Dental decay diminishes quality of life.

 

So, the implication of Dr. Limebeck’s photo of iron-stained teeth which had never touched optimally fluoridated water is, ‘this is what happens when you drink this stuff.’  For Dr. Limebeck to use this photo as an example of Mild DF is deceptive any way you look at it.  So, Dr. Bill, my comments were about the science, and the misrepresentation of it.

 

Oh, before I forget, you also asked, “You say "this angle" has been brought to the Supreme Court 13 times.  I had not heard that.  Can you please give citations/references?”

 

Well, I really shouldn’t, since you said, “. .  you need to search for yourself.   I can't do your homework for you.” (‎08-14-2018 12:30 AM)  But I won’t play your game.  Since my comments are verifiable, here you go:

 

J Public Health Dent. 1986 Fall;46(4):188-98.

Antifluoridationists persist: the constitutional basis for fluoridation.

Block, LE

 

Alkire v. Cashman, cert. denied, 414 US 858 (Ohio 1973)

 

Birnel v. Town of Fircrest, 335 P.2d 819 (Wash. 1959), appeal dismissed, 361 U.S. 10 (1959), reh'g. denied, 361 U.S. 904 (1959);

 

Chapman v. City of Shreveport, 74 So. 2d 142 (La. 1954), appeal dismissed, 348 U.S. 892 (1954),

 

City of Canton v. Whitman, 337 N.E.2d 766 (Ohio 1975), appeal dismissed, 425 U.S. 956 (1976);

 

De Aryan v. Butler, 260 P.2d 98 (D. Cal. 1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 1012 (1954);

 

Dowell v. City of Tulsa, 273 P.2d 859 (Okla. 1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 912 (1955);

 

Kraus v. City of Cleveland, 116 N.E.2d 779 (Ohio Com. P1. 1953), aff'd, 127 N.E.2d 609 (Ohio 1955), appeal dismissed, 351 U.S. 935 (1956);

 

Mary Bellassai et al v. James McAvoy et al (Ohio, 1982), cert. denied, 459 US 971 (1982)

 

Minnesota State Bd. of Health v. City of Brainerd, 241 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. 1976), appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 803 (1976);

 

Paduano v. City of New York, 257 N.Y.S.2d 531 (Sup. Ct. 1965), aff'd, 24 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y.A.D. 1965), aff'd, 218 N.E.2d 339 (N.Y. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1026 (1967);

 

Readey v. St. Louis County Water Co., 352 S.W.2d 622 (Mo. 1961), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 371 U.S. 8 (1962), reh'g denied, 371 U.S. 906 (1962);

 

Safe Water Foundation of Texas v. City of Houston, 661 S.W.2d 190 (Tex. Ct. App. 1983), appeal dismissed, 469 U.S. 801 (1984);

 

Schuringa v. City of Chicago, 198 N.E.2d 326 (Ill. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 964 (1965)

 

Now, Dr. Bill, this is the Last Time I am going to do your homework for you.

0 Kudos
7,195 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

David,

I missed an important point in my last post which you raised.  

 

Indeed, this thread demands that AARP take action on fluoride because AARP is a perfect arbitor or facilitator of this controversial issue.   There are many top notch scientists who are members of AARP.  Certainly, some of these scientists would volunteer to evaluate the various issues on fluoridation.  AARP could hold a forum, discussions, evaluation of research, promote a white paper, and carefully have scientists review fluoride exposure, dosage, safety, efficacy and jurisdiction, bringing all sides to the table. 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

7,358 Views
2
Report
Regular Contributor

Bill,

 

Leading health and medical organizations around the world endorse community water fluoridation as effective and safe for everyone.

 

A few examples of endorsements come from:

1. American Academy of Pediatrics

2. American Dental Association

3. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

4. Mayo Clinic

5. American Academy of Family Physicians

6. World Health Organization

 

Not a single credibly recognized organization in the world opposes community water fluoridation.  Not one.

 

It is a pipe dream to think that the AARP would take a stand opposing credibly recognized scientific and health organizations.  As a dentist yourself, you know that this will never happen.  

 

AARP is a credibly recognized advocate for our country's aging like myself.  Why would they recommend stopping community water fluoridation for the very population that benefits greatly from it's cavity fighting natural mineral, fluoride?  

 

As we age we tend to get receeding gums.  The softer surfaces of our roots become exposed.  As a dentist, you know that these surfaces get cavities far greater and easier than the harder enamel of the crowns of our teeth.  And as a dentist you know that these are the most difficult fillings for us to place and to retain in place because of their being mostly on the multi-rooted molars.  Many times this results in tooth loss for our aging population.

 

To suggest that AARP recommend harming our population because a handful of boisterous opponents wish it so is to show disrespect for our families, including yours.

 

Thank you AARP for allowing this thread which shows what lengths people with a conspiratorial position will go to to create a false fear in our aging population.  

 

Johnny

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

 

7,255 Views
1
Report
Conversationalist

Dr. Johnson,

 

You hit on several important topics and sound like an echo of David. . . or is it the other way?

 

You have failed to address over exposure.  Just because a little might be good, does not mean more is just as good or even safe.  Many are ingesting too much fluoride. 

 

You are correct about the aging process and more root caries, although my geriatric patients seldom have root caries, it is a problem, especially for those with poor diets.  

 

Here is the serious flaw in your theory.  Fluoride has some topical benefit like toothpaste, not systemic. Fluoridated water has too short of a contact time and too dilute to have topical benefit. There are no prospective randomized controlled trials, good science, supporting your theory for dilute short contact topical or "ingested" fluoride.  If 0.7 ppm fluoride concentration had topical benefit, makes no sense to give people 1,500 parts per million topical.  And if my memory is correct, drop down to below 500 ppm fluoride in toothpaste and the benefit drops off.  A significant topical benefit from fluoridated water makes no scientific sense and is not backed by research.   

 

Fluoride ingestion with intent to prevent caries is not FDA approved because the science is still incomplete. . . and the studies could be done and probably have.  But they don't show benefit. 

 

97% of Western Europe is fluoridation free and your comment echoing David that there is not a single credible organization opposed to fluoridation is simply wrong, and you know it. . . . unless the definition of "incredible" requires that they support fluoridation.  Then you have a catch 22, circular logic.

 

And you go back to endorsements.  Endorsements are not science.  But lets look at some of those "credible" organizations you raise.

 

1.  Please provide a link to each of those organizations and the references to the primary research supporting their position.  Then we can discuss their science.

 

2.  The American Dental  Association testified in court that they owe no duty to protect the public.  Seriously Johnny, the ADA exists to protect its members, dentists, not the public.  For example, the ADA support mercury fillings which are illegal due to toxicity for me to throw in the trash or dump in the sewer or send in the mail.   What about the human mouth makes them safe?  Nothing.  Tradition is more important than public safety.  Even the mercury filling manufacturers have greater warnings than the ADA.   We cannot trust the ADA to protect patients, they protect dentists. 

 

3.   The CDC simply reacts to the ADA and they don't think for themselves or review the research.  CDC does not determine the dosage, efficacy or safety of any substance used to prevent disease.

 

4.  WHO is clear that a determination must first be made whether there is inadequate fluoride in a community before more is recommended.  As of 2011-2012 we had 60% of adolescents with dental fluorosis and 20% with moderate/severe. . . far too much fluoride.  Certainly more should not be administered when so many show a biomarker of excess exposure.

 

Now to the AARP.

 

If you had science on your side, you would welcome a scientific debate, discussion, forum, review and white paper.  Seniors get too much fluoride with medications, their kidneys are often compromised, their bones brittle.   Why add more to their diet?   If you want topical, I will not argue.  But swallowing the fluoride harms seniors and does not help their teeth.

 

No conspiracy, Johnny.  Simply blind obedience to tradition and a lack of scientific critical thinking.

 

My mentor reminded me, "50% of what we know in health care is wrong, but we do not know which 50%.  Always be a humble student of science, we are wrong and need to find out where."

 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

 

 

7,201 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill,

 

Your analogy of “whack-a-mole,” which I raised, is a little off, although I appreciate your efforts to manipulate the concept so it somehow works for you.  The idea of whack-a-mole is that a mole pops his head out of a hole, someone tries to “whack” the mole before he ducks down and reappears from another hole. 

 

In the original analogy, the issues themselves are the holes.  So, you raise the issue of “Freedom of Choice” not to drink fluoridated water.  I whack your argument with the fact that you never had a freedom of choice because you live on Planet Earth, and on Earth all drinking water has some degree of fluoride in it.  You have been drinking fluoridated water for your entire life.  There is no “Freedom of Choice” on Earth in regards to drinking fluoridated water.  You are a child of the Earth. You will drink water with fluoride in it.

 

The mole gets whacked, but pops his head out from another hole.  You raise the issue of contaminants.  I point out that a person would have to drink 2 liters of water per day for 2451 lifetimes to have a one-in-a-million chance of having an ill health effect from any arsenic, or any other contaminant, as a result of fluoridation.  (You may see my math and comments here): https://www.facebook.com/fluoridewater/posts/915319835173028?__xts__[0]=68.ARD5Cjwr7uOe5lLRT8zSN6qug... ),

and Dr. Ken Perrrott of New Zealand points out that source water often has more background contaminants than the miniscule amount which would be added by fluoridation (https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/06/12/chemophobic-scaremongering-much-ado-about-absolutely-... )  . . Moreover, he points out the amount added is so infinitesimally, astronomically small . . well, I direct you to my math for that one. 

 

The mole gets whacked again but pops his head up here:  Dr. Bill says, “You know one of my top concerns. . . like the WHO . . . excess exposure.”  I point out that the WHO is indeed concerned about excess exposure, in places like India, where drinking water can have 33 times the optimal level of fluoride, . . or China, where atmospheric fluoride is 100 times the amount in the United States; neither of which has anything to do with community water fluoridation.  Moreover, the World Health Organization supports community water fluoridation.

 

The mole gets whacked but raises his head out of the “harm to animals” hole.  I will discuss Cathy Justus, her claim of fluoridated water killing her horses, and will provide a link to Dr. Perrott’s discussion of the issue in my next comment.  (Well, here are Perrott’s comments on the issue.  More discussion of Cathy Justus in the following comment:  https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/06/10/fluoridation-and-horses-another-myth/

 

The mole now pops out of the IQ hole.  You all bring up the Harvard Study, a Review of non-peer reviewed Asian studies study (where environmental fluoride is extremely high), and other studies which had not been undertaken in areas where community water fluoridation is practiced, and therefore I point out these have nothing to do with community water fluoridation.

 

I point out that the Broadbent Study (2015) which concluded “findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the context of CWF programs is neurotoxic.”    Aggeborn & Ohman (2016) & the Barberio Study (2017) all suggesting that optimally fluoridated water does not have a negative effect on IQ.  But you don’t like those studies.

 

And on and on and on it goes.  It is an endless game of “whack-a-mole” and when it is over I ask the mole to provide one documented case of any human being who was ever harmed in any way from drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.  .  .  .  Silence .  .  .  the mole’s head pops out from the “Freedom of Choice” hole.

 

 And it begins again.  

 

This is baseless scare-mongering, plain and simple.  But what motivation would you 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, 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.

0 Kudos
7,019 Views
0
Report
Moderator
Moderator

Hey everyone,

AARP welcomes robust debate.

 

This is a gentle reminder to please remember to post according to the AARP community guidelines.

 

https://community.aarp.org/t5/custom/page/page-id/Guidelines

 

0 Kudos
7,036 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The F concentration from the discharge point is not diluted. Salmon cannot navigate through it. In the Sacramento River which is barely a stone throw wide, the discharge tube emits its plume across the river. This presents a chemical barrier to salmon that navigate only to a specific spawn site with  a known, imprinted chemical composition. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
7,192 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber, 

 

`1.)  You have made a claim with which every expert who has looked at the situation disagrees.  Environmental experts have determined that drought hurt the salmon industry in Sacramento.  No environmental expert has ever claimed that municipal effluent has had any impact on Sacramento salmon.  What exactly are your qualifications?

 

2.)  Your comment below implies that there is zero flow in the Sacramento river, and that municipal effluent is jetted across a non-flowing river, creating this barrier you claim exists.

 

3.)  Have you bothered to do any calculations to support your far fetched theory?  For example, in my comment below you will see that Mr. Carroll has determined that the flow of the Columbia River is 200,000 cubic feet per second.  a.)  What is the flow rate of the Sacramento River?  And please provide documentation of your answer as Mr. Carroll did.  b.)  What was the municipal effluent discharge of South Sacramento when you claimed this happened?  Again, provide documentation of your answer.  

 

4.)  According to Mr. Carroll's calculations, an average discharge of optimally fluoridated water at 900,000 per day into a river flowing at 200,000 cfs, creates an environmental impact of 4 one-millionths of a part per million.  With a background fluoride level of 0.1 - 0.2 parts per million F, and salmon being sensitive at 0.5 ppm, we see that the impact was not even 1 one-hundred-thousandths of a part per million.  Moreover, Mr. Carroll's calculations may have been high, since he didn't account storm water run-off and other non-municipal infliltration which must be included into effluent discharge.

 

Have you done the math?  So far, all we've seen from you is some far fetched theory that supports your anti-fluoride agenda that no other expert agrees with.  And we have your word, with no documentation, that all these things happened silmultaniously.  

 

Perhaps you ascribe to the theory that if you say something enough, people will begin to believe it.  Sorry, math doesn't lie and science doesn't work that way.  Used car salesmen work that way.

 

5.)  One more thing.  I took the liberty of taking a look at the Sacramento River which you claim "is barely a stone throw wide."  According to Wikipedia, "The Sacramento River is the principal river of Northern California and is the largest river in California."  

 

I must say, Dr. Sauerheber, if "the largest river in California" is barely a stone throw wide, California must have some pretty tiny rivers.  I'll need to see those calculations and that documentation supporting it.

7,202 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

In my opimion the burden of proof for administrationering a drug or supplement into the public water supply is on the supplier, not the consumer. There is no proof that 1 ppm water, discharged into a river where salmon spawn, is harmless. The reason I argue the sacramento collapse was due to fluoridation is because of two facts 1) 0.3 ppm in controlled studies in soft water proved it narcotizes salmon  to prevent upstream chemo-location. 2) The second fact is the disastrous salmon collapse in sacramento occurred for the first  run after Sacramento began fluoridation. The deduction that fluoride water discharges (where F is the size of a water molecule and cannot be filtered by water treatments that sanitize waste water prior to discharge) at 1 ppm into the River caused the subsequent collapse is reasonable.

Anyone else is free to not believe, but no one can claim proof that fluoridation had no involvement in what  happened. There is no such proof. 

It requires digging into city records to find the details of how/when fluoridation began. 

 Unannounced to the public, the south section of the city began fluoridation in 2010. The collapse occurred after that, when there was no nusual drought. Then  later the rest of the city began fluoridating  which was announced to the public. 

I am not going to relocate the city records documents simply because someone demands it. The 

deduction stands, and fluoridation was a mistake for vast reasons far beyond environmental issues. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
7,378 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber, in response to your undocumented, unproven claim that water fluoridation caused the destruction of the salmon industry in Sacramento (which was attributed to drought) allow me to first cite passages from your last comment: 

 

“There is no proof that 1 ppm water, discharged into a river where salmon spawn, is harmless.”

Response:  There is no proof it is harmful.  You are the one who made the outlandish claim disagreeing with the official version of events.  The burden of proof is on you.

 

“ 1) 0.3 ppm in controlled studies in soft water proved it narcotizes salmon  to prevent upstream chemo-location. 2) The second fact is the disastrous salmon collapse in sacramento occurred for the first  run after Sacramento began fluoridation. The deduction that fluoride water discharges (where F is the size of a water molecule and cannot be filtered by water treatments that sanitize waste water prior to discharge) at 1 ppm into the River caused the subsequent collapse is reasonable.”

 

Response:  Yes, it would be reasonable if there were no water in the Sacramento river to begin with.  However, there is water in rivers where salmon dwell. 

 

This nonsensical issue came up in Oregon, and Limnologist, Joe Carroll of Water Quality Consulting actually did the calculation/math on this for the Hood River, where the issue was raised in the face of rationality.  You may view his entire letter here:  https://ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Water-Expert-Letter-Fish-Impact-2005.pdf

 

Salient points made in his letter to the Hood River News: “Fluoride background levels in the Columbia River, based on NOAA Fisheries peer reviewed articles from the 1980’s, were established in the 0.2 ppm (parts per million) range. Corps of Engineer water quality sampling completed in 1999 established fluoride background levels for Columbia River waters near The Dalles Dam to be around 0.1 ppm. The earlier NOAA Fisheries articles found Salmon to be sensitive to 0.5 ppm F . .”

 

“The resulting fluoride concentration associated with the normal Hood River water usage and subsequent release into the Columbia River is approximately 0.000004 ppm.  (note:  This equals 4 parts per million of a part per million) This is based on a daily waste effluent of 900,000 gallons per day, an average Columbia River flow of 200,000 cfs (cubic feet per second), and assuming a reduction in the fluoride concentrations from 1 ppm to 0.6 ppm due to partial removal by the solid waste.”

 

Moreover, “The river background fluoride levels are expected to be in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 ppm so how could an additional 0.000004 ppm result in any effect on the biological communities?”

 

To simplify his comments, background fluoride in the river was 0.1-0.2 ppm F.  Water fluoridation effluent added 0.000004 ppm.  Salmon are sensitive to fluoride at 0.5 ppm.  The resulting fluoride in the river after fluoridation, then, was 0.100004 - 0.2000004 ppm.  Fluoride levels hadn’t even been raised a 1/1000th part per million and were still well below salmon sensitivities.  Salmon are not affected in any way because of community water fluoridation. 

 

You are free to believe anything you want, but your ideas do not stand up to the math or the science, or rationality.  There is no evidence that the salmon industry was harmed by community water fluoridation in Sacramento.  You were unable to provide any evidence of such harm when asked for it.  And any intelligent moderator from the AARP can see your comments for what they are.