Looking for a part-time job? AARP's online career fair Jan. 24 can help! Register for free.

 

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
74
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

74 Views
Message 31 of 996

Why do I have to respond to anyone who calls me an "alternative heath pimp"?

The Graham and Morin reference (Highlights in North American Fluoride Litigation) happens to be online at various places. I should say go find it yourself, but to help readers, here it is:

 

http://whale.to/d/Graham.pdf

 

And Slott's stupid comments are important and essential to know about. This is one of a host of reasons why fluoridation promoters, at the AWWA, the CDC, the AFS, the ADA,k etc. continue to argue that treating peoples' teeth through public water supplies is not illegal.  You may not care, but we do.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
74
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
69
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

69 Views
Message 32 of 996

Richard says, " Here is the Graham and Morin monograph, pleese consult footnote #88."

 

Response:  Again, who are Graham and Morin?  Where is footnote #88?  (Perhaps you meant to attach a link.  Please do so now if you would, please.)

 

RS:  "The U.S. Congress expected the SDWA to halt the spread of water fluoridation.  And yet I am denounced for making this statement. When do I throw up?"

Response:  I am not denouncing you.  I am asking who Graham and Morin are, what they are talking about, and why you believe CWF is illegal.  I don't know when you throw up.

 

RS:  "So the data point I provided is not "anecdotal"."

 

Response: 

 

"an·ec·do·tal

/ˌanəkˈdōdl/
adjective
 
  1. (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
     
    You provided a personal account with zero documentation.  Yes, your tale is anecdotal. 
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
69
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
72
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

72 Views
Message 33 of 996

And here is yet another lie. I have never written that water fluoridation in Sacramento killed all the salmon in the River. What nonsense. I provided the evidence that a large salmon collapse was prolonged after fluoridation began in Sacramrento and explained why this could be, and that there are no salmon depositing eggs near the outflow tube that discharges the city fluoridated waste water. If you wnt to make an issue of this, stick to the facts. We don't need even more lies.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
72
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
76
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

76 Views
Message 34 of 996

Just like I said, I was asked a question, but obviously merely for the purpose of being assailed, not for the purpose of learning something. Now the claim is that there is no reference provided about the intent of the SDWA. Wow.  Here is the Graham and Morin monograph, pleese consult footnote #88.

The U.S. Congress expected the SDWA to halt the spread of water fluoridation.  And yet I am denounced for making this statement. When do I throw up?

 

And BTW I object to any child having to live with the embarrassment of dental fluorosis, no matter how severe, not just my friends' kids. So the data point I provided is not "anecdotal". The Bible says kids have angels who look directly in the face of God Himself. So stop fluoride poisoning our kids, where the major contributor to the dental fluorosis abnormal enamel hypoplasia is water fluoridation. Get rid of it.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
76
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
73
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

73 Views
Message 35 of 996

Richard says, "The Safe Drinking Water Act intent, its purpose, was to halt the spread of water fluoridation (as described by Graham and Morin in their fluoridation litigation detailed monograph)."

 

Response:  Who are Graham and Morin?  Please provide a link and documentation so we know what you are talking about.

 

RS:  "However the wording of the law covered all substances (other than those required to sanitize water) where it prohibited any National requirement to add such substances"

 

Response:  Please provide the wording of the law, and document, so we know what you are talking about.

 

The remainder of your comment appears to rest on the premise of these first two.  Please clarify your meaning on those and then we can move on.  I am not interested in fluoridationist Slott.  I am interested in why fluoridation is illegal.  Please stay on topic.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
73
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
74
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

74 Views
Message 36 of 996

billo - what are you talking about:  "Read my post again.  You went balistics off topic.  I was not talking sex or attraction but evidence.  This is a discussion about fluoridation, not sex.  However, if you want to go to the science on fluoride and sex, I would be pleased.  

 

Is it possible for you to move off of fear, pain, sex and attraction and go back to evidence?   Or is that too much to ask?"

 

For the record, my comment wasn't about fear, sex, pain or food, Calligula.  You made a false statement and I corrected it.  End of story.  

 

If you would care to begin your comments with facts, then you have my attention.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
74
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
82
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

82 Views
Message 37 of 996

Billo, 

 

Perhaps I was a bit harsh, but I truly do not understand how you would think anybody reading this thread could take any of you so-called anti-fluoride experts seriously.  .   .  And I'm not attacking you people.  I am criticizing the deceptiveness of your comments and actions.

 

You've got Limeback who photographed iron-stained teeth, which had never touched optimally fluoridated water, putting his picture in an article about mild dental fluorosis.  .   .  An article written by an attorney.  (See photograph 2 here http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis04b/ )

 

You've got "Carrie Anne," or whatever name she is going by in this thread.  

 

You've got Sauerheber who - with no evidence - a lone reed in the wind - proclaiming that water fluoridation killed all the salmon in Sacramento.  .  .  Who claims that the SDWA was written with the specific intent of halting water fluoridation . .  I mean -  Come on.

 

And we've got you, who just appears to pull facts from . . I don't know . . wherever.  Sorry, Bill, if I dismissed you so quickly, but when I see false, meaningless, undocumented statements from people pushing your agenda, to me it's just another load of junk from you alternative health pimps.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
82
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
91
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

91 Views
Message 38 of 996

David,

 

It is not possible to communicate with you when you fail to read.  Approaching each post with hostility, makes a person miss critical points.

 

Read my post again.  You went balistics off topic.  I was not talking sex or attraction but evidence.  This is a discussion about fluoridation, not sex.  However, if you want to go to the science on fluoride and sex, I would be pleased.  

 

Is it possible for you to move off of fear, pain, sex and attraction and go back to evidence?   Or is that too much to ask?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
91
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
89
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

89 Views
Message 39 of 996

I'm being asked whether fluoridation is illegal or not, with the pretense to actually want to learn something from me. The answer will not be received, but it is this: The Safe Drinking Water Act intent, its purpose, was to halt the spread of water fluoridation (as described by Graham and Morin in their fluoridation litigation detailed monograph). However the wording of the law covered all substances (other than those required to sanitize water) where it prohibited any National requirement to add such substances This allowed fluoridationists to twist the law and claim it does not prevent specifically fluoridation (with various excuses provided, see below).

So my statement in the earlier post was that it would be best if the law could be written more forcefully, namely a stated disallowing of fluoridation period, rather than the prohibiting of a requirement. The requirement provision was obviously insufficient to halt the spread of fluoridation. So the anwer is yes it is illegal because it does not sanitize water, but all laws can be broken when enough rewriting and excuses are made.

Fluoridationist S. Slott for example argues that fluoridation is comparable to chlorination because chlorine and fluoride are both toxic at high concentrations but are added to treat water at lower concentrations for a benefit, so this is consistent with the SDWA. This is in complete denial of the intent of the Act and is chemically incorrect also.  Chlorine is added to kill bacteria to make water potable and nonlethal. Fluoride has nothing to do with sanitizing water which the Act allows. Fluoride is added to treat human beings. Slott then retorts that fluoride does not treat humans, it treats the water, but this is of couse nonsense. There is no reason to add fluoride to water to support hydration. If a community had good dental care with no caries problem, why would anyone add fluoride to the entire water supply of the city? (The irony here of course is that eating fluoride all day long does not affect caries anyway).

Is this clearer?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
89
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
104
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

104 Views
Message 40 of 996

Billo, you began your rant with two false statements so I stopped reading:  

 

"Consider 3 main catagories of evidence strongly affecting most people.

 

1.  Marketing/money are the most powerful.

 

2.  Tradition is almost as powerful as marketing and money."

 

Wrong.  Fear and pain are the strongest human motivators.  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-main-ingredient/200909/the-most-powerful-motivator

 

Food and sex are the first things human beings notice and are attracted to.  https://spoonuniversity.com/lifestyle/food-and-sex-are-the-same-to-your-brain

 

Bill, your little stories, which appear to have no basis in fact, are of no interest to me.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
104
Views