Reply
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
528
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

528 Views
Message 421 of 1,450

Whether there are fluoride precipitates in pipes or not, fluoridation chemicals leach lead salts ftom plumbing.

And xray analyses of teeth treated,even with high concentrations of fluoride such as in dental gels does not incorporate fluoride into enamel (which is mostly is inorganic in teeth with a small amount of amelogenin very much different than the biomatrix in bone). The fluoride then combines with calcium to form globules on teeth detected under scanning EM. These readily dissolve in,slight acidity such as when meal eating and the globules are swallowed and end up in bone anyway.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
528
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
534
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

534 Views
Message 422 of 1,450

Whether there are fluoride precipitates in pipes or not, fluoridation chemicals leach lead salts ftom plumbing.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
534
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
599
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

599 Views
Message 423 of 1,450

Richard, bioapatites like bones and teeth are not hydroxyapatites - and just as well. In the real world, there are isomorphous substitutions of various cations and anions and F in the structure strengthens and lowers the solubuility of the apatite. So F incorporation inot bioapatites is perfectly natural. (And, incidentally, the use of hydroxyapatite as models for tooth enamel is very misleading)

Yes, there are problenms when the incorporation is excessive - but like all nutrients, we understand there are upper and lower levels to dietary itnakes.

The incorporation of F into the surfacer layers of tooth apatite does confer protective properties and that incorporation with existing teeth is proven to occur only at the surface layers in practice.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
599
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
611
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

611 Views
Message 424 of 1,450

skanen144 Pyromorphite is usually the Cl compound Pb5(PO4)3Cl. Yes, isomorphous substitution occurs but what surprises me is that there are no analytical data given in this section for F. See table C27, page C106. This makes me suspect the pyromorphite identified by XRD is not the fluoride analogue but more likey a Cl, phosphate, OH analogue.

The description of pyromorphite as the fluoride analogue in Table C26 appears to be a mistake. If the authors seriously suggested it was a fluoride analogue they would have provided analytical data for F, not Cl. I also note that the report describes fluoropyromorphite as "rare" and the Chloro and Hydroxy analogues as "common."

So, yes my comment was based on the analytical data. And I am aware that by itself and without fine structure XRD would not differentiate between different analogues.

So I do not think your original comment "Lead scales formed on lead service lines were mainly compounds of fluoride" is warranted.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
611
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
574
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

574 Views
Message 425 of 1,450

Exxchange reactions of fluoride replacing hydroxide in bone hydroxyapatite (and in lead salts on oxidized plumbing) are not surprising. What is shocking is that the same fluoridationists who argue that these reactions do not take place neverthtless also argue that fluoride does incorporate into teeth enamel  hydroxyapatite. Enamel is far too hard a form of the calcium phospahte material than bone and fluoride does not incorporate into the enamel matrix like it does in bone.

How much more backward can a human being be on this?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
574
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
575
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

575 Views
Message 426 of 1,450

Thanks susan. It is not sirprising that fluoride cohld fo this with lead dalts that are akeays predent on old plumbing woth oxidized lead. Ion exchange of a hydroxide with flioride to form these precipitates remimds one of the fact that fluoride in blood,at only 0.15 ppm partixipates in an ion exchange process with hydtoxide in hydroxyaoatite, converting bone into abnormal fluoroapatite. Fluoride does this at concentrations far belpw the solubility product concentratipn required to precipitate calcium fluoride.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
575
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist
3
Kudos
593
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

593 Views
Message 427 of 1,450

I posted a link demonstrating lead scales on lead drinking water pipes were mainly compounds of fluoride.

 

Just to be sure we are all looking at the same pages. I refer to the Washington Aqueduct Lead Service Line Pilot Study, section starting on page 315 of 523 pdf or (C-88) as labeled in the report: Contribution of Service Line and Plumbing Fixtures to Lead and Copper Rule Compliance Issues. C-104 to C-111 is the analysis of scales lining the lead service pipes (LSL) that deliver drinking water to Washington, DC.  Lead pipes were dug up out of the ground and hung on the wall as in the picture C-88. Sections or coupons of LSL in each loop were periodically removed and the scales analyzed.  I am an eye witness to this pilot study in Washington, DC. Yes these were the scales on the surface of LSL bathed in the fluoridated water of Washington, DC.  DavidF, how can you say this has nothing to do with water fluoridation?

 

The discussion on C-104, Figure C.95 summarized in table C.26 mentions the dominant scales from Washington Aqueduct pipeloop #7 as peaks labeled Pm = fluoropyromorphite, a compound of fluoride or Pb5F(PO4)3 . 

 

Page C-107 describes three minerals from the scales; apatite, pyromorphite and vanadimite  that are compounds of ‘X’ listed as X= F, CL, or OH. Ken P., how is this not about compounds of fluoride?

 

I am surprised that my statements are challenged by saying my link has nothing to do with water fluoridation or lead scales composed of compounds of fluoride.

 

My original concern about this Pipeloop project was that it obscured the truth that the lead leaching from LSL was highly seasonal with much higher lead results during the warmer summer months. Hidden in the raw data also are lead results from samples varying the amount fluoride added.  Obviously from the data, the EPA was asking the question, ‘does addition of acidic fluoridation chemicals increase lead leaching?’ Not getting the answer the EPA wanted to accept, the results were deeply archived.

 

Lead and Copper Rule sampling is gamed in many ways to hide actual lead contamination of drinking water. I cannot understand why anyone can have such a callous disregard for the harmful effects, especially on infants, of both lead and fluoride found in drinking water.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
593
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
576
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

576 Views
Message 428 of 1,450

The kumar comments need no link. Just read the study itself. The mean differences,are not outside the error bars. Is that too difficult?

And there cant be any caries reduction based on actual solid, studies provided before that are ignored by fluoridationists, from ziegelbecker and from teotia and from yiamouyiamnis and from the perfectly controlled mammalian studies. You can drink fluoride water all day long and it will not correct or prevent dental caries

 And it cannot lower their incidence if you take care of your teeth  and have no caries in the frst place.lack of fluoride does not cause caries. Again, the nonsense that never ends  is what is boring.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
576
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
585
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

585 Views
Message 429 of 1,450

The issue is not at all boring. Trying to protect people from ingesting worthless poisonous substances is not boring.

What is boring is,arguing with someone who has no clue what the truth is and refuses to learn it.

I never said,a single salmon was killed by fluoridated water. .you obviously have not learned about the university of oregon studies,and the john jay dam results. Fluoride at 0. 7 ppm doesnt kill salmon. Where do you get this stuff? 

Fluoride,at 0.3 or higher (as is fluoridated,water in the discharge pipe in the sacramento river] prevents, salmon from spawning normally. No eggs,are laid near the discharge pipe. The fact thst you still cant understand is what makes,it boring.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
585
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
591
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

591 Views
Message 430 of 1,450

Richard,  

 

If you are bored, perhaps you should find other things to do that hold your interest.  As for me, I'm having the time of my life.  This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

Your quote:  "I i (sic.) havent made incorrect statements."

 

Response:  No?  Here are three examples for starters. 

 

1.)  Your quote:  "I never said if you drink fluoridated water yiu (sic.) will develop CO brown  stain."  (Timestamp ‎02-17-2019 11:08 AM) . . . That incorrect statement was disproven in my comment timestamped ‎02-17-2019 01:07 PM.

 

2.)  You also said, "You quote kumar wjo (sic.) publishes data that have means that do not differ beyond standard etror (sic.) and proclaims that a fluorotic tooth is resistant to decay. That is deception." . . . It is not deception; therefore your comment is incorrect.  I provided a link to a valid peer-reviewed study to support my comment which you called deception.  I asked you to provide valid peer-reviewed work to support your contrary opinion.  You were able to provide Nothing.  Your comment was incorrect.  And

 

3.)  You said CWF was responsible for the collapse of the salmon industry in the Sacramento River.  You provided not One Shread of evidence to support your solitary opinion.  You just made up this story without a.)  knowing background fluoride levels in the river . . . b.)  checking fluoride levels in the river downstream of effluent discharge . . . c.) knowing the flow of the river . . .

d.)  knowing the amount of daily effluent discharge . . . e.)  any examination of any actual dead salmon . . .  f.)   and without the agreement of even one real environmentalist who actually agrees with your unique hypothesis.  

 

Yes, Dr. Sauerheber.  You make incorrect statements all the time.  Perhaps you do it out of boredom.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
591
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users