From retirement calculators to free tax assistance, AARP has the member benefits you need. Explore today.

Reply
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
329
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

329 Views
Message 51 of 394

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.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
329
Views
Gold Conversationalist
5
Kudos
323
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

323 Views
Message 52 of 394

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.
Report Inappropriate Content
5
Kudos
323
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
340
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

340 Views
Message 53 of 394

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. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
340
Views
Gold Conversationalist
6
Kudos
552
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

552 Views
Message 54 of 394

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.
Report Inappropriate Content
6
Kudos
552
Views
Info Seeker +
0
Kudos
537
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

537 Views
Message 55 of 394

Excellent comments, Dave.  Thanks.

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
537
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
648
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

648 Views
Message 56 of 394

Just so we are clear here, Dr. Bill, you appear to be bowing out of this discussion when you are pressed to present evidence supporting one of your claims. 

 

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.”  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. 

 

Moreover, this comment which you just made is factually incorrect and you know it:  “The primary evidence is compelling, enough so that HHS even lowered the concentration of fluoride in water.”

 

In response to that false statement I will factually say that 0.7 ppm is currently the target range.  It has been refined from 0.7 – 1.2 ppm to the more narrow range.  0.7 ppm was always part of that target, as it has been since the early 1960s.  It is a target, that is all.  It is not enforceable.  The maximum contaminant Level has not been lowered.  The secondary MCL hasn’t been lowered. You know these things.  And yet you deceptively imply that now the HHS is worried about fluoride over-exposure. 

 

Due to more sophisticated monitoring equipment available with today’s technology, a more refined target is possible.  And yet you try to imply that this is part of some sort of conspiracy.

 

We can discuss everything else you’ve brought up in your last comment (whack-a-mole), but what we see here is someone who touts evidence based conclusions, yet when pressed for evidence of his own statements chooses to bow out and make excuses. 

 

I think the AARP, as well as any other objective reader, can easily distinguish truth from falsehood in this discussion.

 

But the bottom line here is that you are part of a fringe outfit trying to con the AARP into supporting your agenda, for whatever purposes; and when your own statements are scrutinized Carrie Anne becomes defensive and alleges that those who dare to ask for evidence of what you are saying are trolls.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
648
Views
Gold Conversationalist
3
Kudos
619
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

619 Views
Message 57 of 394

Whack a Mole.

 

David, I no longer have time to simply argue with a believer.  Sort of like trying to change the Pope's belief in the virgin birth.  Religious freedom is important and I will not try to stop you from your belief in selected organizations which have no jurisdiction over fluoride exposure.

 

In closing, fluoridation is very much like Whack a Mole because there are many, many factors to consider.  Judgment must be used and bias affects judgment.  In summary:

 

1.   I do not hear dispute that 20% of adolescents with moderate/severe dental fluorosis is too much.  Excess exposure in and of itself is reason to reduce exposure. 

 

The most logical place to reduce excess exposure is a cessation of fluoridation.  Other sources have benefit, such as pesticides, post-harvest fumigants, medications, toothpaste, manufacturing, etc. 

 

2.  The organizations you rely on do not have primary evidence for how much fluoride in the tooth reduces tooth decay.  We don't know how much is effective.

 

3.  Over 50 human studies are reporting harm from fluoride to the developing brain and many tissues appear to also be harmed. . . at very low dosages.   Bones, pineal gland, teeth, nerves, mitochondria, and more. 

 

Take the evidence and use judgment.  With other sources available, why treat everyone even if they don't have teeth, have chemical sensitivities or ingesting too much fluoride from other places. 

 

The primary evidence is compelling, enough so that HHS even lowered the concentration of fluoride in water.  Was not enough, but a good start and clearly indicates excess exposure.

 

Perhaps I could suggest some science courses which might give you a greater appreciation for factual evidence rather than a simple belief system.

 

Fluoridation is not an evidence based public health intervention.

 

Cheers,

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
619
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
614
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

614 Views
Message 58 of 394

Carrie Anne,

 

You say, "Since you are so concerned about funding, David, you should know Pollick is known in some quarters as the 'million dollar dentist' because of his activities."

 

Yes, I am concerned with funding.  Please provide some evidence that Dr. Pollick is compromised in some way because of funding.  I have already shown that the Fluoride Action Network takes money from Mercola, an unethical company that has already received 4 warning letters from the FDA for its behavior.  So I would be interested in seeing proof of what you've said.

 

 

 

Nothing's been proven here other than some anecdotal stories.  Please tell me about your symptoms so that we may discuss them in detail and attempt to ascertain the accuracy of your claims.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
614
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
624
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

624 Views
Message 59 of 394

"Many municipal water sources inject fluorine (at 1 ppm) as an additive to prevent tooth decay. Use of this water for irrigation can result in toxicity symptoms on sensitive plants."  - in Pacific Northwest Pest Management Handbook (2018) “Fluorine Toxicity in Plants” by J.W. Pscheidt, Extension Plant Pathology Specialist, OSU 

 

This thread is about establishing a foundation of evidence that fluoridation is dangerous to senior citizen health - we have done that. Although fluoridation does not provide significant benefit to teeth and instead has damaged the teeth of over half of American teens (Wiener et al. 2018), it wouldn't matter if fluoride consumption was beneficial to teeth when it also damages kidney, thyroid, bone and gut health in many consumers. 

 

Environmental impact is just more evidence of harm, which stresses that fluoridation opposition should be about actual evidence and modern science rather than rhetoric and political campaiging.

 

Speaking of political campaigning, the first item on David's list is by Howard Pollick. Mr. Pollick is one of two persons identified by the ADA as its official pro-fluoridation spokespersons. Since you are so concerned about funding, David, you should know Pollick is known in some quarters as the 'million dollar dentist' because of his activities.

 

Despite his bias, Pollick was unable to prevent the inclusion of language in a large 2003 California Head Start study on cavities and ethnicity that noted that fluoridation had no impact on cavity experience among these low-income high risk children. However, FOIA requests revealed that while wordsmithing the ADA infant formula statment in 2010, Pollick witheld that information and instead suggested using circular reasoning and endorsement to justify CDC pro-fluoridation policy and to downplay the evidence of damage. 

 

Bottom line: We can argue science all day, but the evidence is that fluoridation is harmful to many consumers and some aquatic species, consequently adding it to water supplies is immoral and unsustainable. That is why AARP and other professional organizations should oppose fluoridation. Buy it for a buck a gallon if you want to drink it and don't believe toothpaste is enough, but don't subject the general population and the planet to this poisonous policy. 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
624
Views
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
632
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

632 Views
Message 60 of 394

Carrie Anne,

 

In response to your interesting take on my comments, you seem frustrated that I am asking for evidence of some pretty far-fetched things that are being said here.

 

Dr. Sauerheber said that the practice of community water fluoridation caused the collapse of the salmon industry in Sacramento.  Are you seriously saying that it is an offense for anyone to ask for evidence of things Dr. Sauerheber says?

 

After looking, I have found no evidence to support this story.  Am I not allowed to ask for any evidence he may have which supports his story?

 

Regarding Dr. Bill, after I presented the fact that there was not one reputable scientific or health organization which opposed water fluoridation, he provided a list of countries which do not fluoridate their water, and of course, countries are not reputable scientific organizations.  He 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.”  07-27-2018 11:56 AM

 

In response to that, I asked him:  “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 him for the Hungarian government agency’s peer-reviewed study that found optimally fluoridated water harmful.  All these countries were included in Dr. Bill's list.

 

I thought you guys were all about evidence.  It appears you only want to discuss cherry-picked evidence which supports your agenda. 

 

Regarding Salmon in Sacramento, the only thing you provided which even remotely comes close defending Dr. Sauerheber’s story was this:  Richard G Foulkes & Anne C Anderson. Research Review: Impact of Artificial Fluoridation on Salmon Species in the Northwest USA and British Columbia, Canada. Fluoride Vol.27 No.4 220-226 1994. 

 

This appeared in the anti-fluoride magazine “Fluoride” in 1994.  Moreover . . .

 

1.)  It is irrelevant to anything that ever allegedly happened in Sacramento.  Drought appears to be the cause of the Salmon collapse there. 

 

2.)  When I look into this issue with more scrutiny, I see there has never been one case, not even one, in which any community maintaining the minute optimal level of fluoride of 0.7 ppm in its drinking water has had any measurable effect on any waterway due to its discharge. 

 

In light of this fact, I am well within my rights to ask Dr. Sauerheber for evidence supporting his story.  He did mention the factual event of an industrial accident in Oregon, which had nothing to do with community water fluoridation. 

 

By the way, regarding this subject, you may be interested in the following:

 

Water Fluoridation and the Environment:  Current Perspective in the United States

Int J Occup Environ Health 2004;10:343-350.  HF Pollick

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/pdf/pollick.pdf

 

The Puyallup Tribe Certified the application for discharge of fluoridated waste water into the Puyallup River.  Surely no people are move reverentially protective of Salmon.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/0/596179085f928d9b88256c5d00587fc7/$FILE/WA0039578%20FS.PDF

 

Am J Public Health. 1990 Oct;80(10):1230-5. Evaluating the impact of municipal water fluoridation on the aquatic environment.  Osterman JW.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2400035

 

2005 Letter by Limnologist Joe Carroll re Hood River, OR fluoride wastewater

http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Water-Expert-Letter-Fish-Impact-2005.pdf

 

Criticism of Damkaer and Dey - North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9:154-162, 1989.  Evidence for Fluoride Effects on Salmon Passage at John Day Dam, Columbia River, 1982-1986

The Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health, Chairman: Dr Seamus O’Hickey, May 2012

Appraisal of "HUMAN TOXICITY, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF WATER FLUORIDATION"  (author Mr. Declan Waugh).  Section 4b.

http://www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/documents/Appraisal_of_Waugh_report_May_2012.pdf

 

Blog comment by EPA staff to citizen concern re fluoride discharges.  http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2014/06/synthetic-female-hormones-in-sewage-are-toxic-to-male-fish-over-gen...

 

"Fluoride at high levels can be toxic to fish and wildlife. It also occurs naturally in groundwater and surface water. Some streams have naturally high levels of fluoride in the water, and the toxicty also depends on the species of the fish, temperature, and the water chemistry. EPA does include fluoride levels in discharge permits when appropriate and has standards for fluoride to protect human health and the environment."

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
632
Views