Is your 'stuff' stressing you out? TV personality Matt Paxton has tips for downsizing and decluttering in our free, two-part webinar! Register now.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
733
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

733 Views
Message 391 of 1,331

That is correct. So what is your point?

San Diego held democratic elections and they are ignored by fluoridationists.

And the 7 pages of mostly dental officials praising fluoride ingestion are plagued with false statements and none of the sections are referenced.

The Mayo Clnic writer is wrong because fluorine as an element, F2,  does not exist in nature. Fluoride compounds do, but that does not include NaF or H2SiF6.

The opening claim is that fluoride remineralizes teeth. This is a common false notion. Normal teeth enamel contains no fluoride and is a hard crystalline form of hydroxyapatite. And also fluoride does not incorporate into enamel topically or systemically because enamel is too hard. One can force fluoride in by applying HF hydrofluoric acid, acidulated fluoride gels for example, which dissolves enamel and forms an abnormal structure and is not something to be desired. Bone hydroxyapatite of course is a different crystal form and readily incorporates fluoride in exchange for hydroxide when fluoridated water is consumed.

And the late Linus Pauling stopped promoting fluoridation and advocated vitamin D, which increases calcium absorption, for preventing tooth decay. Calcium builds strong teeth, not fluoride. (I was fortunate to have a chemustry class at UCSD from Pauling). So this 7 page list of undocumented claims is far out of date.

Other errors are so numerous that who would want to read all the corrections?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
733
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
0
Kudos
746
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

746 Views
Message 392 of 1,331
It's called a democratic society, Rich. Democracy.........Not like the party affiliation
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
746
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
745
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

745 Views
Message 393 of 1,331
I note you cite some obscure person in New Zealand. On the other side are just over 140 prestigious organizations and societies going on record that fluoridation prevents cavities, is important and is safe. America's Pediatricians have a convenient reference where many of these statements can be read: http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
745
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
742
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

742 Views
Message 394 of 1,331

And to think that there are people who actually believe that fluoridation is a democratic procedure is absolutely moronic.  The city of San Diego voted twice, --two separate elections over a multi-year period -- against fluoridation and later also passed city ordinance section 67 that prohibts the addition of fluoridation chemicals into our water supplies. And yet when money was placed in front of the city council, all that was ignored and fluoridation was forced on the city anyway in 2011.

Democratic voting most often is opposed to fluoridation as long as a fair campiagn is conducted that includes actual data.  And yet this bone fluoridation program is actually mandated in many states including CA where there was no State wide public vote at all.

Democratic? You've got to be joking.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
742
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
742
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

742 Views
Message 395 of 1,331

Absolute horse puckey. Most of the fluoride in the bloodstream of consumers in fluoridated communities is from fluoridated water consumption. The rest is from foods and toothpastes, etc. (NRC 2006).  Dental fluorosis increases in incidence in every fluoridated city. There are no exceptions. This is old  news.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
742
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
776
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

776 Views
Message 396 of 1,331

Hi Bill,

 

Historic data is what you are referring to.  But humor me for a moment.

 

To say that conclusions are cherry picking is quite humorous.  The 2006 NRC looked back at 10 years of literature on fluorides when they evaluated the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG).

 

The Committee considered three toxicity end points for which there were sufficient relevant data for assessing the adequacy of the MCLG (4 mg/L) for fluoride to protect public health:

1. severe enamel fluorosis

2. skeletal fluorosis

3. bone fractures.

(NRC Report, page 346)

 

Conclusions:

1. ONLY adverse health effects at 4mg/L of fluoride in water was severe enamel fluorosis.  No other organs, neurotoxicity, reproductive effects, carcinogenicity, endocrine.....nothing!  This is a level 6 times higher than water fluoridation, 0.7ppm

 

2.  At 2mg/L, severe dental fluorosis was virtually zero.

 

US Community Preventive Services Task Force: (2013)

Community water fluoridation does not cause severe dental fluorosis.

 

It baffles me that you still can't wrap your head around the fact that severe dental fluorosis isn't caused by community water fluoridation.  But that's ok.  I've backed up my material with references that opponents use frequently to cherry pick from, the 2006 NRC Review.

 

Thanks for the exchange, Bill.  Have to go defend another community under attack from the opponents of community water fluoridation.

 

Johnny

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
776
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
774
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

774 Views
Message 397 of 1,331

Thanks carryanne. Indeed , the safe drinking water act was written specifically to halt the  spread of artificial fluoridation of peoples' drinking water. Fluoride promoters not only deny this, they misinterpret the law the way they want. And the CDC dentists who assume it is useful and somehow harmless promote it, knowing it cannot be legally required.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
774
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
749
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

749 Views
Message 398 of 1,331

“If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson (1787)

 

This is about individual human rights and medical science, not a simplistic majority rule interpretation of democracy. Individual biological integrity is a fundamental principle of law. Yet, fluoridationists politicized community fluoridation policy in an effort to confuse and deceive the public. My neighbor should not have the right to add a known enzyme poison to municipal drinking water - the water I drink and in which I bathe because they believe it might  'prevent cavities' in some poor kid who doesn't brush his teeth when that substance threatens my thyroid, compromises my kidney and inflames my gut.

 

That there are very profitable business plans behind fluoridation practice and fluoridation promotion which fund the political campaigns to fluoridate is immaterial to ethics and evidence of harm. 

 

”Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” - UNESCO on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2005)

 

”Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” - UNESCO on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2005)

 

 ”The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.”  - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 3 (2005)

 

Since first enacted in 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act has stated that “[n]o national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.” -  Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 93-523)

 

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential ... The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity ... During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible." - Nuremberg Code (1947)

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
749
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
736
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

736 Views
Message 399 of 1,331

In the cited link notice on page 5 that states "these data are preliminary". Of course they are preliminary because humans cannot be controlled, as animals can in cages, for variables such as sugar consumption, brushing habits, etc. In short the data have no reliable meaning, as has always been the case with fluoridation-promoting literature.

It is immoral to approve infusing a non-nutrient substance into water to treat humans, especially as for fluoridation, without double blind controlled studies AFTER conducting well-controlled animal studies. The fluoridation of Grand Rapids MI and Newburgh NY took place in 1945 without EITHER of these pre-conditions. It later became a government sponsored program and the case has been closed since then. But now we have controlled animal studies that prove fluoridated water does not reduce the incidence of spontaneous dental decay. For ingestible substances, the purpose of human studies is to confirm a positive outcome from animal studies. But we don't have a positive outcome from animal studies--they are negative, so the idea that human studies need to be done to prove that the decision to fluoridate in 1945 was correct is simply preposterous.

In fact, we have the Ziegelbecker epidemiologic data indicating that decay is not affected significantly even up to 6 ppm fluoride in water.

Meranwhile, there is no blood fluoride concentration low enough to prevent incorporation into bone in a pathologic process that, if continued lifelong and one lives long eough, leads to bone pain and other adverse consequences.

Don't fluoridate peoples' bones. The cited reference admits that "more studies are needed" on the accumulation of fluoride from fluoridated water into bone. What the authors don't appear to realize is that we have massive amounts of scientific data already on this problem and it is not good. Bone fluorosis symptoms are known to develop in some individuals at bone fluorde levels as low as 1,500-1,700 mg/kg. And this level, comparable to the concentration of fluoride in toothpaste but in bone where it does not belong, is reached typically after about 20 years consuming fluoridated water.

Get rid of it.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
736
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
750
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

750 Views
Message 400 of 1,331

Dr. Johnny,

 

Your data is historic.  The 2011-2012 NHANES reports about 2% of adolescents with SEVERE dental fluorosis, at the time 2% would be several hundred thousand adolescents and with time that will grow to millions of people in the USA.

 

When fluoridation started the public was assured the mildest form of fluorosis would not exceed 10% or maybe 15% of the population.  We are looking at 60% and don't have the more recent numbers from NHANES surveys.  

 

And severe dental fluorosis is an adverse risk, NRC 2006.

 

Johnny, read the NRC 2006, especially the section by Thiessen on exposure, not just cherry picking the conclusions.

 

Based just on the public health iatrogenic epidemic of dental fluorosis, we need to reduce fluoride exposure.

 

Then look at urine fluoride concentrations, much too high.  The same in the USA/Canada as reported with lower IQ.  

 

Too many are ingesting too much fluoride from too many sources.   Total exposure must be considered, not just one source.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Proud advocate for less toxic fluoride in our water.  

Attacking the fake facts, not individuals. 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
750
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark