California Center for Rural Policy Needs Help with Humboldt Fluoride Survey
This is a press release from the California Center for Rural Policy:
News, nature, and community throughout the Emerald Triangle
News, nature, and community throughout the Emerald Triangle
This is a press release from the California Center for Rural Policy:
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Duhh! Fluoride is a toxic metal based by product that has no business being inside Humans😀💃🙀
Fluoride is a mineral and a nutrient. It is not toxic in the low concentrations used in fluoridation. (Just as salt can be toxic but not in the amounts used daily.)
From WebMD: Fluoride is a mineral that occurs naturally in many foods and water. Every day, minerals are added to and lost from a tooth’s enamel layer through two processes, demineralization and remineralization. Minerals are lost (demineralization) from a tooth’s enamel layer when acids — formed from plaque bacteria and sugars in the mouth — attack the enamel. Minerals such as fluoride, calcium, and phosphate are redeposited (remineralization) to the enamel layer from the foods and waters consumed. Too much demineralization without enough remineralization to repair the enamel layer leads to tooth decay.
Fluoride helps prevent tooth decay by making the tooth more resistant to acid attacks from plaque bacteria and sugars in the mouth. It also reverses early decay. In children under 6 years of age, fluoride becomes incorporated into the development of permanent teeth, making it difficult for acids to demineralize the teeth. Fluoride also helps speed remineralization as well as disrupts acid production in already erupted teeth of both children and adults. https://www.webmd.com/oral-health/guide/fluoride-treatment#1
Think about the Fluoride connection to heavy metal toxicity, and the increased vaccine schedule, and EMF, RF, and now, microwaves.
Does not the roll out of automation and AI resonate with you, that there is a need for far fewer people in this world?
If you recognize this for what it is, then simply act accordingly. There is still room to wiggle and save yourself from the inevitable depopulation that’s coming.
melanopsin – “Whenever we have an idea in our heads for which we seek only confirming information, that’s exactly what we will find.” – Brian Dunning, 2019
Misinformation, based on ideas “in our heads for which we seek only confirming information”, is rampant these days. Trust the experts instead of fabricated claims.
https://www.ada.org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation/fluoridation-facts
^^^ it’s important to remind people from time to time ^^^
melanopsin & Blue Fraud – In the case of CWF, like vaccination, pandemic-mitigation and all other health issues, the relevant facts about diseases (causes and effective, safe treatments) come from ideas that are ultimately tested and validated by producing and fairly evaluating legitimate, reproducible scientific evidence – not un-validated “ideas” based only on beliefs, no matter how strong and inflexible. That is exactly why the process of establishing a scientific consensus of relevant experts is critical. Without a process of establishing and continually testing/validating (or sometimes modifying) a consensus, there would be no science and no health care measures.
Despite what you have “Googled” and want desperately to believe, the fact is, science still supports CWF as a safe and effective public health measure to reduce dental decay and related health problems – which do cause harm. That is why the major science and health organizations in the world continue to support CWF.
The fact that legitimate science continues to support CWF is why the anti-CWF opinions are not supported by any major, recognized science/health organizations. The anti-F opinions are only supported by a few outlier science/health “experts”, a handful of alternative “health” organizations like the IAOMT, vocal activist groups like FAN and the CHD (with an anti-vax agenda) and some conspiracy theory fanatics like Alex Jones [INFOWARS], David Icke [Son of the Godhead] and Mike Adams [Natural News].
Another fact is that the “evidence” provided by CWF opponents is severely flawed and has not proven any harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water. One of the best examples, I have listed elsewhere, is the 2019 Green, et al. study used by fluoridation opponents to “prove” CWF lowers IQ. The limitations of the study are so obvious that it received immediate criticism from experts world-wide.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/fluoridationInformation-green.html
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/?s=IQ+fluoride
How do you explain the above facts? Don’t forget to provide proof of your explanations. Other commenters asked specifically to explain the facts have been silent or have simply repeated standard, unsupported anti-F opinions.
My body, my choice. Randy.
How about you stop pushing forced medication on others like gates and Co.
You can supplement with fluoride If you are feeling deficient, you don’t have to medicate the whole water supply for an 8 percent ingestion rate.
Your body, your choice, BFraud –
Are you also a member of the the anti-chlorination movement?
Seems as though you would gladly support efforts to ban pushing forced poisoning (chlorine, chloramine, disinfection byproducts – not to mention other water treatment chemicals*) on others?
You can easily drink “Raw Water” – Untreated water could be piped to your home if you were successful at banning water treatment.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/fear-tap-water-is-a-toxic-plot-to-control-your-mind-heres-the-water-for-you/
You can also easily choose any personal water treatment method you wish to meet your specific specifications. if you wish only pure, unadulterated H2O, double-distillation with filtration would work reasonably well.
After all, it is your body, your choice.
* For a list of over 100 toxic chemicals that can be used to treat drinking water click on the down-arrow by “Chemical Name”:
http://info.nsf.org/Certified/PwsChemicals/
Basic rule of toxicology, Illaria, “The dose makes the poison”. Optimal fluoride concentrations of 0.7 ppm is safe and effective.
The treating of a water supply for an entire city is different than the individual choice whether you and your family want to ingest a chemical compound.
YOU CAN ARGUE safe AND Effective LIKE OTC drugs, and condoms, yet somehow people’s choice isn’t honored, and some people hate condoms.
It’s interesting that we are discussing the wholesale treatment of a water supply, in the time of face masks.
You can choose to enjoy the years of bio accumulation, but don’t expect me to wear a mask when you are old and frail and immune compromised, from years of bad luck on top of bad choices .
Does that help the pro fluoride contingency here to recognize the rights of the individual?
BFraud – All water treatment methods protect the health of those who drink it, and everyone who drinks the treated water drinks a mix of chemical compounds – residual disinfectants (and other treatment chemicals*), disinfectant byproducts – not to mention other residual “natural” chemicals.
You choose not to drink fluoride ions, others choose not to drink disinfectants or disinfection byproducts, others choose to drink “raw water”. Does that give anyone the right to demand their “solutions” be forced on everyone in the community?
You are extremely selective about what you demand. Would you accept the arguments of anti-disinfection activists and accept their demands?
Does that help the anti-fluoride contingency here to recognize the rights of the individual for access to drinking water that protects their health – dental health, protection from disease, protection from chemical contaminants?
Anyone who is fearful of any residual substances in their drinking water can personally remove those they wish to avoid.
* For a list of over 100 toxic chemicals that can be used to treat drinking water click on the down-arrow by “Chemical Name”:
http://info.nsf.org/Certified/PwsChemicals/
Blue Fraud, No court of last resort has EVER ruled fluoridation mass medication of the unwilling (ADA Fluoridation Facts 2018, page 91).
Public health is about protecting a population, not an individual. That’s why vitamin A and C are added to milk, vitamin B-12 to bread products, why we have speed limits, helmet laws, and age limitations to purchase alcohol.
You can choose to not drink the public water, install a RO filter at your home tap, refuse vaccinations for your children (but don’t expect that public schools are required to educate your unvaccinated children).
Being part of society, one doesn’t have to like all of the rules or laws. He or she just needs to follow them. If you don’t want to follow them, find a deserted island and relocate.
Oh, looks like your idea of what the public needs is better decided by experts.
If all the billionaires hadn’t bought up those deserted islands, with that big corporate media money, that big pharmaceutical money, that big Hollywood money, that big lobbyist money, I would absolutely trade places with Tom Hanks.
It’s by no measure to be well adjusted to a sick society.
Bullshit.
Blue Fraud is a name created just two days ago.
You are them, they are you – and you are a fucking troll.
DELETE yourself.
So I’m to believe people care about our teeth so much, that they want to put fluoride in our drinking water?? Please! What a joke.
I started to answer survey and they want to know my race, gender, education…….. And that has to do with fluoride how?
Questions about race, gender, etc. helps those conducting the study understand the demographics of those who are using/not using/using in certain ways. For instance, if a preponderance of Hispanic woman with a high school education are using fluoride, then they have one key to understanding fluoride use.
Perspective – Are you to believe people care about our health so much, that they want to put a chemical weapon (chlorine) in our drinking water?? Please! Trust the experts and not the fearmongers. There is waaaay too much anti-science, misinformation in the world.
It’s back????? The 1950’s fluoride hysteria. Evidently they’re running short on bullshit, and have to recycle 70 year old nonsense. Well, at least they’re recycling. No problem, just wear a mask on your teeth.
Unfortunately, some people trust General Jack D. Ripper and his converts over relevant science and health experts – just as they trust tweets about ignoring wearing masks and social distancing over relevant science and health experts who are trying to protect the health of citizens.
——————————
General Jack D. Ripper: “Mandrake. Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater, and only pure-grain alcohol?”
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: “Well, it did occur to me, Jack, yes.”
General Jack D. Ripper: “Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation. Fluoridation of water?”
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: “Uh? Yes, I-I have heard of that, Jack, yes. Yes.”
General Jack D. Ripper: “Well, do you know what it is?”
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: “No, no I don’t know what it is, no.”
General Jack D. Ripper: “Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?”
General Jack D. Ripper: “Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk… ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children’s ice cream.”
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: [very nervous] “Lord, Jack.”
General Jack D. Ripper: “You know when fluoridation first began?”
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: “I… no, no. I don’t, Jack.”
General Jack D. Ripper: “Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It’s incredibly obvious, isn’t it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That’s the way your hard-core Commie works.”
Dr. Strangelove, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb (1964)
——————————
Trust The Experts
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/whyCWF.html
Fluoride is great for topical use only.
It’s good to have it in toothpastes and dental varnishes (a good dentist can tell you all about dental varnishes..)
But fluoride should NOT be used systemically. It gives no benefit to teeth when ingested.
I have so many friends who have fluoride toxicity in their teeth (whatever those white marks are called, I’ve forgotten) from topical application. Why can’t we promote remineralizing using magnesium chloride (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4125884/) instead of trying to chemically change the tooth matrix with flouride?
Seriously why can’t we do this?
Actually, fluoride works both topically and systemically. Both ways work together to prevent cavities, pain, and suffering.
The effects of fluoride are both topical and systemic. The systemic effects are demonstrated in the mild to very mild dental fluorosis which is the only dental fluorosis in any manner associated with optimally fluoridated water. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As Kumar, et al. have demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse. Dental fluorosis can only occur systemically.
The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren Hiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH
http://jada.ada.org/content/140/7/855.long
Covid works too, topically and systemically.
Stop eating crap food and drink, and floss and brush like your dentist appointment is tomorrow.
I started the survey but quit it quickly when the race questions get asked.
It seems like marketing more than health.
Have you used fluoride
Did it help
Did you have less cavities
The same amount
Did you have side effects
Do you understand where fluoride comes from
Is it toxic
Do communities without fluoride have different outcomes
What are the negative aspects
Who is selling fluoride
People can choose it if they want it versus adding it to water supply
My thoughts and I’m sure there are many with other insights
They’re a non profit that gets funding for dental health education. Of course they need demographics. It’s pretty standard for obtaining funding and reporting out the program results.
Fluoride should not be ingested
Ok put that in the survey!
Fluoride is the 13th most common element in the Earth’s crust. ALL water has some fluoride in it, usually, not enough to help prevent cavities.
Here is another study demonstrating the systemic benefit of fluoride:
“Conclusions: While 6-year-old children who had not ingested fluoridated water showed higher DMFT (Decayed, Missing, Filled Teeth) in the WF-ceased area than in the non-WF area, 11-year-old children in the Water Fluoridation (WF)-ceased area who had ingested fluoridated water for approximately 4 years after birth showed significantly lower DMFT than those in the non-WF area. This suggests that the systemic effect of fluoride intake through water fluoridation could be important for the prevention of dental caries.”
Systemic effect of water fluoridation on dental caries prevalence
Cho HJ, Jin BH, Park DY, Jung SH, Lee HS, Paik DI, Bae KH.
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2014; 42: 341–348. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Again, What Does It Take To Help A Brain Dead Slave Mentality recognize The Difference Between Effective. …and NOT WANTED.
SEX IS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE UNLESS YOU FORCE SOMEONE AGAINST THEIR WILL.
WATER FLUORIDATION IS RAPE.
Wow. Our world is truly a crazy place when people don’t even want to take a survey because it asked demographic questions.
I don’t remember putting my name or anything into it, it’s just general information. Who is taking the survey is a instrumental part of the process.
Fluoride shouldn’t be put in our drinking water, take off your tinfoil hat and just take the survey. It’s not going to impact you negatively in anyway. Lmfao.
“Overall, the NTP report concluded there was high confidence that fluoride harms the developing brain, even at exposures down to 1.5 mg/L. The NTP’s confidence rating of ‘presumed hazard’ is the highest confidence level possible. A rating of ‘definite hazard’ would require controlled studies that deliberately dose pregnant women and infants, which would be unethical with a presumed neurotoxin. Given the voluminous consistent evidence, the NTP also concluded that future studies, even if they did not detect adverse effects, would be unlikely to reduce their hazard conclusion. At levels relevant to artificial fluoridation, the NTP’s individual study assessments demonstrate a clear hazard to children’s brains as well. However, the NTP appears to have bent to pressure from the CDC, the main promoter of fluoridation, when it obscures and equivocates about the body of low-dose evidence”
“These studies, all funded by the NIH, found significant effects when pregnant women or bottle-fed infants were exposed to fluoride below 0.7 mg/L, the level of artificial water fluoridation, or equivalent doses from other sources (Bashash 2017, 2018; Green 2019; Till 2020).”
A poster Neurath presented at a recent scientific conference of the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology showed that of the 29 studies that the NTP classified as higher quality, 27 found neurotoxic effects. Of those finding adverse effects 18 were at fluoride levels below 1.5 mg/L and 13 at levels below 0.7 mg/L.
“With 93% of the 18 higher quality low-dose studies finding harm to the child’s brain, this demonstrates remarkable consistency and belies the NTP contention that the evidence is unclear at levels relevant to the US and water fluoridation”, said Neurath.”
Chris Neurath of FAN
The science is in and working its way through the system. High quality gov’t science showing that we have been damaging children’s brains. Not quack science(sorry KH- you’ll have to find others windmills to wield your mighty pseudo-skeptic sword at). The EPA has to act on a new updated petition that will require them to use the latest government sponsored data to set a margin of safety. Judge Chen has been overseeing the case moving through the courts and has been very firm on the usual EPA shenanigans, punted it back to the EPA to do their job, and said that he would make a determination if the EPA didn’t. Fascinating trial case. When a former head of the NIEH and NTP looks at the science and says it’s time to start protecting babies… listen up. https://www.ehn.org/fluoride-and-childrens-health-2648120286.html
Just Watching — The 2019 National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) Draft Monograph ‘Systematic Review of Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health Effects’ concluded “that fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans.” That blanket statement was issued completely out of context of any exposure levels and has been hailed by fluoridation opponents (FOs) as supporting their opinions. The entire NTP draft monograph, however, has serious problems and an equally flawed revision is currently undergoing a second review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).
On March 5, 2020 the NASEM released its initial review of the 2019 NTP Draft Monograph. The review’s conclusion: “The committee was tasked with assessing whether NTP satisfactorily supports its conclusion. Given the issues raised by the committee regarding the analysis of various aspects of some studies and the analysis, summary, and presentation of the data in the monograph, the committee does not find that NTP has adequately supported its conclusion. (p44)” and “NTP needs to state clearly that the monograph is not designed to be informative with respect to decisions about the concentrations of fluoride that are used for water fluoridation. (p19)”
https://www.nap.edu/download/25715
An important statement, in the original NTP draft, ignored by FOs, is “As noted above, describing the effects at 1.5 mg/L or below, which is more relevant to the exposures observed in the U.S. population, including from community water fluoridation, is more difficult”. (P 57) In other words, there was no evidence that exposure levels over twice the optimal level had any measurable effects on any health issue. In addition, the studies reviewed had extremely severe limitations in design, implementation, and evaluation.
In fact, a number of studies and reviews have found no association between exposure to fluoride ions at levels found in optimally fluoridated water and reduced IQ or any neurological issues.
~> McPherson CA,et al. An evaluation of neurotoxicity following fluoride exposure from gestational through adult ages in Long-Evans hooded rats. Neurotoxicol Res (2018) This was a study specifically designed to test potential neurological issues at fluoride exposure levels relevant to exposure to optimally fluoridated water – it found none.
~> Guth S, Hüser S, Roth A., ‘Toxicity of fluoride: critical evaluation of evidence for human developmental neurotoxicity in epidemiological studies, animal experiments and in vitro analyses’. Archives of Toxicology. Published online on 08, May 2020.
~> National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Information paper – ‘Water fluoridation: dental and other human health outcomes’, report prepared by the Clinical Trials Centre at University of Sydney, NHMRC; Canberra (2017)
~> Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, CADTH rapid response report: summary with critical appraisal. ‘Community Water Fluoridation: A Review of Neurological and Cognitive Effects’. Ottawa: 2019 Oct.
~> Sutton M, et al. ‘Health Effects of Water Fluoridation. An evidence review’. Health Research Board. Ireland (2015.)
~> Broadbent JM, et al. ‘Community water fluoridation and intelligence: prospective study in New Zealand’. Am J Public Health, (2015)
~> Linuz Aggeborn and Mattias Öhman (2020), ‘The Effects of Fluoride in the Drinking Water’, Journal of Political Economy, (June 26, 2020) online ahead of print, accepted for publication.
——————————–
One of the studies considered in the NTP review and widely used by FOs to try and support their opinions is ‘the Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada’ – Green, et al., JAMA Pediatr. August 19, 2019. This study only concluded “higher levels of fluoride during pregnancy was associated with lower IQ scores in children aged 3 to 4 years” Any scientist understands that an association does not mean a cause and effect relationship, and the data scatter in the graphs alone should be evidence to anyone with a passing understanding of statistics that any potential “association” would be extremely slight. That’s the reason the study received immediate and unprecedented criticism from experts from around the world.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/fluoridationInformation-green.html
A poster by Chris Neurath, research director for FAN, does not constitute a legitimate scientific review of the literature – only a biased selection and interpretation of what can be adjusted to fit a pre-defined, inflexible belief. There is no science supporting anti-F opinions that’s working its way through the system, and if Judge Chen accepts the actual scientific evidence, the ruling will be in favor of fluoridation,
You might ask yourself if the autism rates have anything to do with the heavy metals in our environment, water?
Look at the State of our collective health and ask yourself if fluoridation of our water supplies is necessary when only 8 percent of water is actually ingested.
The result is the wholesale medicating is something people might take issues with since you are essentially calling for forced medication of the water supply.
Some people have learned from the historical record that Science has a very dark past when it comes to informed consent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States
How about handing fluoride tablets out to those who consent to fluoride treatments.
Nice try, but you seem to A) be unaware that the statement by Neurath was made after the NTP finished their review this past October at the behest of the NAS– and the statement stands ”“Fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans” according to the second draft report of the US National Toxicology Programme (NTP), that has just been released. B) you were NOT following the court case under Chen, or are aware of the process by which the case is proceeding. He consistently chastised the EPA legal counsel and would have made a ruling but felt that it was best to go through the EPA and have them make the decision.C) in toxicology one must set a margin of safety to protect the most at risk… IF the EPA does their job, neurotoxicity will have to be the new endpoint and any customary margin of safety of 10 will remove water fluoridation.
It is clear that you are as entrenched in your position as I am or you would have dug into matters deeper.
From the final closing arguments of Michael Connett, lawyer for the plaintiffs:
“In this case, the EPA has failed in its duties to protect the public from harm.”
“TSCA commands that the EPA not just protect the general public…if there is one unreasonable risk, to just one susceptible subpopulation, the EPA must take action to remove such risk.”
“We brought before your honor, world class experts in the highest order. Experts that the EPA has consistently depended on for assessments…The EPA has based their regulations on lead and mercury on our experts.”
“It’s undisputed that fluoride will pass through the placenta into the brain of the fetus. It’s undisputed that babies who are bottle fed with fluoridated water receive highest doses of fluoride in our population at the moment of greatest vulnerability. It’s undisputed that fluoride damages the brain.
At the start of the trial I said there are three key questions that need to be answered. Is there a hazard? Is there a risk? Is the risk unreasonable? The answer [to all three questions] is a resounding yes.”
“We have 4 high quality cohort studies. Each has found associations between early life exposures to fluoride and lowered IQ…by around 5 IQ points. The effect size rivals the neurotoxic effects of lead.”
“There is no dispute that the developing brain is the most susceptible to neurotoxic side-effects.”
“The most likely explanation for the observed adverse effects…is that fluoride is a neurotoxin at the levels found in fluoridated communities across the United States.”
Connett also pointed out that the experts the EPA relied upon, including the two Exponent employees, were not experts on fluoride, and that the agency did not call their own employees to answer key questions in the case. He was referring to EPA’s foremost expert on fluoride, Dr. Joyce Donahue, as well as Dr. Kris Thayer. Additionally, he said the EPA never once attempted to determine an estimate of what the levels are that cause neurotoxic effects. Connett added that the EPA witness Joyce Donohue, PhD said the National Institutes of Health funded-studies were “well conducted” and “warrant a reassessment of all existing” fluoride studies.
Then Connett concluded his statement by showing the true extent of potential damage, saying we have 2 million pregnant mothers in fluoridated areas and over 400,000 exclusively formula-fed babies in fluoridated areas, all presently being exposed to fluoride-contaminated drinking water.
EPA’s Turn
The EPA’s attorney started by questioning whether fluoride posed a hazard. Early on in her closing statement, the judge stopped her—which would become a very common occurrence–and said, “The way you’re framing this is not helpful. I don’t think anyone disputes that fluoride is a hazard…the critical question is at what level it poses a risk.”
It was at this point, that the EPA’s closing statement turned into a 40-minute inquisition by the judge. First he started asking about the EPA’s claims that the animal studies showed fluoride to be safe. This resulted in him getting their attorney to admit that if the studies found a moderate effect in adult rats, then why wouldn’t there then be a prenatal and neonate effect? This put the EPA in a corner, causing them to ditch their line of argument and admit that the human studies are in-fact more relevant.
The judge then reprimanded the EPA for challenging the reliability of Philippe Grandjean’s benchmark dose, but never taking the time to calculate their own to prove their point. EPA quickly pivoted to an argument that the Canadian and Mexican cohorts weren’t applicable to the US; probably one of the dumbest arguments we hear from proponents. The judge intimated that he was aware of the new study out of California proving otherwise, which appeared pretty devastating to the EPA.
The judge concluded by asking one final question, “Under TSCA, can the court find an unreasonable risk without finding causation?” EPA replied, “yes.”
Judge Makes Recommendations
After closing statements, Judge Chen immediately started sharing his views on the case and making recommendations. This is when he said (it’s worth repeating):
So much has changed since the petition was filed…two significant series of studies – respective cohort studies – which everybody agrees is the best methodology. Everybody agrees that these were rigorous studies and everybody agrees that these studies would be part of the best available scientific evidence.
The EPA appears to have applied a standard of causation, which from my read of TSCA is not accurate. It’s not a proper allocation. It’s not the proper standard.
Chen continued by asking the parties whether they could discuss the possibility of an amended petition and re-assessment by the EPA, or start a new petition and have the EPA conduct a proper review, leaving his ultimate ruling until that was complete.”
To repeat..The judge concluded by asking one final question, “Under TSCA, can the court find an unreasonable risk without finding causation?” EPA replied, “yes.”
ok, your turn.
Just Watching – Poor try, because you seem to:
A) be unaware that NTP had not finished its review this past October (they are apparently revising the revisions), and the September 16 revised draft monograph concluded, “When focusing on findings from studies with exposures in ranges typically found in drinking water in the United States (0.7 mg/L for optimally fluoridated community water systems) that can be evaluated for dose response, effects on cognitive neurodevelopment are inconsistent, and therefore unclear.” Perhaps you don’t understand the term “unclear”. Take the Green, et al. study for example – there was no significant overall IQ drop in children, so the authors had to try and find subsets that might produce a significant result – they were able to find a slight IQ drop in boys with an increase in fluoride levels, but the IQ in girls increased. Extremely small changes and extremely large data scatter – as found in all studies produced by fluoridation opponents (FOs) – are clear evidence that the results do not support any conclusions that community water fluoridation (CWF) has any negative effect on the brain. Authors of the Green, et al. study have refused to release their data for independent review – what does that tell you??
B) be unaware that whatever Judge Chen does or does not rule on the case is only his opinion (he is not a scientist), and can’t make the studies presented by the FOs any more believable to the relevant experts who have nearly unanimously denounced them.
C) be unaware that since there is no legitimate evidence that fluoridation causes neurological damage or other health issues, and there is over 75 years of evidence that fluoridation reduces the risk of tooth decay – which does cause significant harm – the risks of removing or preventing CWF become critical to the decision making process. That is what public health measures like smoking restrictions, vaccination policies, food protection, drinking water treatment processes (including fluoridation) are designed to do – help keep citizens safe. It is becoming quite obvious what the consequences are of ignoring public health measures like mask wearing, social distancing, etc. People who have strong, inflexible ideologies concerning their presumed rights and freedoms vs. public health measures can risk not only their health, but the health of others.
It is clear that you are entrenched in your position, or you would consider the entire body of evidence that supports the safety and effectiveness of CWF.
Michael Connett, lawyer for the plaintiffs, is not a scientist – which is obvious in his claim that the “EPA has failed in its duties to protect the public from harm.” Quite the contrary – CWF has protected citizens from the well-established harm of dental decay for decades – except where it has not been employed because of those who care more about their ideology than public health. Lead and mercury regulations have nothing to do with fluoridation. Unlike lead and mercury, which have no beneficial effects at any exposure level, low levels of fluoride ions are, in fact, beneficial to health. Like any substance, too much of a good thing is harmful. If you happened to drink 5 – 10 times the normal amount of water in a sitting you could easily be dead. Is that a reason to ban drinking water, because it can be dangerous at excessive exposure levels?
In order to find unreasonable risk from CWF, there would have to be some actual evidence presented. Since hundreds of millions of people worldwide have been drinking fluoridated water for decades, if there were any health issues associated with the practice, there should be some obvious evidence. It should not be necessary to have to accumulate and manipulate data to dredge out some barely noticeable, possible association (without any adjustment for numerous potential confounding factors) between CWF and some health issues. In fact there has been considerable scientific evidence of the benefits and safety of CWF for over 75 years.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/fluoridationInformation-reviews.html
If there is any legitimate scientific evidence supporting the opinions of FOs, please explain:
A) The fact that CWF is recognized a safe and effective public health measure by the WHO and numerous major and respected science and health organizations worldwide, including the U.S., Canada, Britain, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and other countries.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/WhyCWF.html#two
B) The fact that no major, respected science and health organizations post warnings about any health risks of CWF.
C) The fact that there are no major, respected science or health organization in the world that support the anti-fluoridation opinions that CWF is ineffective &/or harmful to health as legitimate. There is also absolutely no evidence that a significant number of science &/or health professionals oppose CWF.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/WhyCWF.html#four
Thanks for responding Randy. Let’s start with your
A) You have corrrected me on the dates–thank you! The plaintiffs and the EPA checked in with Judge Chen last week, and I conflated the date of the statement from the former head of the NTP that came out in October. Aa) The EPA witnesses, under oath, confirmed that the 4 NIEH studies were “high-quality” enough to force a re-evaluation of CWF.
Our response to the Sept, NTP report:
B) “The Relationship Between Fluoride and Neurotoxic Effects Is Unlikely to Be Explained by Confounding or Other Issues of Methodology and Bias
“The NTP reached its hazard conclusion for fluoride after carefully considering issues of study quality and bias, including potential confounding, publication bias, translation bias, and the validity of exposure and outcome assessments. Each of these methodological issues were raised at trial by EPA to question the confidence in the numerous studies reporting neurotoxicity from fluoride exposure. Importantly, the NTP’s report makes clear that none of the issues identified by EPA at trial warrant a downgrade in the confidence that fluoride is a human neurotoxicant. In other words, the issues identified by EPA at trial do not explain the overwhelmingly consistent association between fluoride and neurotoxic harm…”
C. The NTP Identified a Large Number of Low Risk-of-Bias Studies Linking Fluoride to Neurotoxicity
“… In total, the NTP identified 31 human studies on fluoride and neurodevelopment that it found to have a relatively low potential for bias (p. 25) and the vast majority of these studies found significant associations between fluoride and adverse effects. This highlights that the association between fluoride and neurotoxicity is not the artifact of poor study design or bias, as EPA argued at trial.”
B)you: “be unaware that whatever Judge Chen does or does not rule on the case is only his opinion (he is not a scientist), and can’t make the studies presented by the FOs any more believable to the relevant experts who have nearly unanimously denounced them”…
BAH! You have no understanding Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”)… and haven’t read the court documents where people have to tell the truth because they are under oath.
” “At the close of trial in June 2020, the Court observed that EPA has subjected Petitioners’ evidence to an incorrect standard of proof. As the Court noted, “EPA appears to have applied a standard of causation … It’s not the proper standard.” (6/17 Trial Tr. 1131:5-9.)
“TSCA commands that EPA protect against “unreasonable risk,” which exists when human exposure to a toxicant is unacceptably close to the estimated hazard level. (6/10 Trial Tr. 471:11-472:9.) At trial, EPA confirmed that ‘EPA does not require that human exposure levels exceed a known adverse effect level to make an unreasonable risk determination under TSCA.’ (Appendix H at 4.) Thus, EPA does not require proof that human exposures under a given condition of use cause the hazard. In fact, Dr. Tala Henry agreed at trial that EPA has “never once in any of its risk evaluations to date under Section 6 used a causation standard.” (6/16 Trial Tr. 987:6-8.) Despite this, Dr. Henry admitted that EPA held Petitioners to a burden of proof where Petitioners needed to prove that human exposure to fluoride in water at 0.7 mg/L causes neurotoxicity. (6/16 Trial Tr. 985-15-987:2.) Dr. Henry thus made the extraordinary admission that EPA ‘held the plaintiffs to a burden of proof that EPA has not held a single chemical under Section 6 before.’ (6/16 Trial Tr. 987:16-19.)…”
Judge Chen probably won’t make the decision, as I assume the EPA will have do follow through and do the risk assessment to respond to the plaintiffs petition. That is where we are at at this point in time.
I think that you are missing an understanding of the TSCA process.
C) you said: “be unaware that since there is no legitimate evidence that fluoridation causes neurological damage or other health issues” You are simply in denial. the evidence has been presented in a legal setting, so it can’t be denied and the EPA is going to have to make another determination based on that evidence.
C.1) you:”Lead and mercury regulations have nothing to do with fluoridation” The experts used by the plaintiffs were experts who have served on NAS panels are lead experts and they disagree with your statement.
If you dismiss the under 1.5ppm science(and not everyone has), there is still the matter of setting a margin of safety factor, another concept that eludes you. If you have determined that 1.5ppm is an unsafe neurotoxic concentration, allowances must be made for individual susceptibilities and water consumption. The TSCA was established to protect the most sensitive populations, LIKE BABIES.
If you research water fluoridation around the world you will find that most of Europe took a look at the science, or tried CWF, or have ethical considerations about dosing everyone via water(some have the fl. salt option). So not everyone is onboard with how wonderful water fluoridation is.
New science in, dogma out. 75 years is a long time to be wrong. Even sacred cows have a tipping point. 😉
Have a great day!
Just Watching – Unfortunately, you need correcting on more issues than dates. The most important issue is the fact that scientific conclusions (establishing a scientific consensus) are not reached in a court of law. A scientific consensus is reached by an agreement of a significant majority of relevant experts who make an assessment of all relevant studies in as unbiased and impartial a manner as possible. A significant majority of relevant experts have concluded over the last 75+ years that CWF is a safe and effective public health measure to reduce dental decay and other related harm – that is the current consensus.
To the best of my knowledge, those who oppose CWF continue to represent outlier beliefs among a few outlier scientists – even after 75 years of research. Do you have any legitimate evidence to prove otherwise?
In order for the consensus on CWF to change, a strong majority of relevant experts would need to agree that the 4 new studies you referenced (and others, of course) were, in fact, high quality and the data was accurately collected and correctly/impartially/objectively evaluated & presented and the conclusions were independently reproduced and validated. To date the one-off studies have accumulated nothing but criticism on numerous fronts from a significant number of experts. Regardless of what the final NTP conclusions happen to be, that is only a tiny piece of the overall process of consensus review, and they are already backing away from their initial obviously faulty conclusions. It will be interesting to see how the NTP committee ultimately addresses the criticisms the drafts have provoked from the NASEM as well as numerous other experts.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-consensus.html
If you can provide satisfactory answers to the very specific and obvious criticisms of the Green, et al. study referenced below, I would be more inclined to accept your opinions – simply making a bunch of claims about a pending court case proves nothing of scientific relevance.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/fluoridationInformation-green.html
I noticed the fact that you did not address the three facts I requested you explain in my previous comment –
A) CWF is recognized by numerous (over 100) nationally and internationally recognized science/health organizations.
B) No nationally and internationally recognized science/health organizations I am aware of post health warnings for CWF.
C) No major, respected science or health organization in the world I am aware of supports the anti-fluoridation opinions that CWF is ineffective &/or harmful to health as legitimate.
It is hard to imagine those facts supporting any rational reasons to accept the anti-F arguments as legitimate.
I will pose several other questions ––
D) What is your understanding of the scientific consensus – it’s relevance, how it is established and the processes that must be followed in order to change an established consensus?
E) Exactly what are those scientists who believe CWF is harmful/ineffective doing within the relevant scientific communities to change the consensus? To the best of my understanding they are spending the majority of their time/energy trying to directly influence public opinion and make the scientific consensus irrelevant with respect to managing science-based policies. From reading content on anti-F sites like FAN, the tactics used to try and influence public opinion have nothing to do with science and everything to do with fear-mongering and other disingenuous manipulations of public opinion.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-AntiScienceTactics.html
New science is in only when newer legitimate scientific evidence convinces a majority of relevant experts that an established consensus needs changing. A fundamental, inescapable principle of science is that it is always open to change with the presentation of new, legitimate evidence that challenges an established consensus.
Dogma is the un-scientific, inflexible belief in authoritative opinions that must be accepted as true – like those of anti-science activists. It is just as unlikely that the anti-F sacred-cow dogma will ever have a “tipping point” as the toppling of anti-vaccination dogma and acceptance of science.
Unwanted water fluoridation is RAPE.
DOESN’T MATTER ALL THE STUDIES.
PEANUTS CAN KILL SOME PEOPLE.
There is one authority, or agency, that determines the safety of fluoride levels in water and that is the EPA, where it is measured as a contaminant. The TSCA trial is not “pending”, it happened in June, there is a court transcript.
To review: ““On November 22, 2016, the undersigned Petitioners submitted a Citizen Petition under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), requesting that the EPA prohibit the addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water in order to protect the public, including susceptible subpopulations, from fluoride’s neurotoxic risks. After the EPA denied this petition, the Petitioners brought suit in the Northern District of California to challenge EPA’s denial. Following a bench trial in June of 2020, the Court stated that EPA had used an incorrect standard in assessing the evidence that the Petitioners had presented. .. The Court also noted that much of the evidence that the Petitioners relied upon at trial—including recent studies funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)— was not yet available at the time EPA denied the Petition. (Appendix A at 4.) In light of these facts, the Court asked Petitioners to re-submit evidence to the EPA in order to give the Agency an opportunity to give the evidence a “second look” using the “proper standard” at the administrative level, which the Court ‘urged’ the EPA to do.” The plaintiffs submitted their supplement to the original Petition to the EPA on Nov. 4th.
Judge Chen is in charge of the TSCA process and can still make a ruling.
I am looking at this from the environmental science perspective, I have a relative is an award winning environmental lawyer who has fought the EPA, knows Chen is an excellent judge, and loved the parts of the transcript that I showed him. He also understands the basics of toxicology…the EPA will have to determine a margin of safety be set to protect the most vulnerable from the NTP’s finding of it being a presumed neurotoxin at 1.5ppm. I don’t think that the site you like to quote has reviewed the legal findings of the TSCA court case which is pushing the new science along. Findings of fact determined in court usually matter to authorities.
http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.supplement.appendix-h.11-4-20.pdf
You can make the argument from authority all day long, in time they are going to have to look at this and take serious the risk highlighted by studies sponsored, created, and reviewed by US government agencies, and found to be of high quality in court when EPA witnesses were questioned. All those authorities you cited just haven’t changed their minds yet, and consensus is about to change… after much resistance.
Assuming the EPA does what the court has directed it to do. Get on a law website and take a look at what is moving through the legal system via the TSCA.
“A fundamental, inescapable principle of science is that it is always open to change with the presentation of new, legitimate evidence that challenges an established consensus.” YES SIR!
That’s what’s happening. I believe that the EPA will have 90 to do their risk assessment. Chen’s court determined that the new cohort studies are of high quality, and in support”In total, the NTP identified 31 human studies on fluoride and neurodevelopment that it found to have a relatively low potential for bias (p. 25) and the vast majority of these studies found significant associations between fluoride and adverse effects.” . Methinks that contempt prior to investigation has blinded you.
90 days
Thank you for sharing. I was told that FDA has Authority over what goes in our mouths, drinking water included.
One would think, given that the claims for CWF fit the definition of a drug, that the FDA would be the go to agency, but because it is considered a contaminant… the EPA regulates it. I might add that there was a union of employees that formed at the EPA decades back because they felt their scientific work was being over-ruled by political considerations. That’s where fluoride got the name America’s protected pollutant. This goes back to the mid1980’s, at least, when the MCL was set at 4ppm over the protests of the scientists who who were looking at the science. The play of money is always a determinant for EPA decisions, not just protective science… if this goes through, the phosphate industry which I believe is still the main source in America, is going to have to pay billions to dispose of their “by-products” that come in containers labeled hazardous waste to communities who then dilute it down. We’ll see… the excitement over the process getting this far in my earlier posts that led to some unnecessary snark and nanner-nanner (sorry Randy) is actually tempered by my understanding of how compromised regulatory agencies and their lawyers operate, but again, my legal “advisor” thinks the EPA will have to act.
I get it. This isn’t about politics of the left or right.
Mass medication/pollution/ scientific research on the public.
What could go wrong?
People don’t know how to correlate toxicity with immune suppression.
And adults who wear diapers.
Even on their face.
Just Watching – You continue to confuse regulations with science. You also have managed to avoid explaining and answering points A-E in my previous comment – as well as ignoring my request to address the numerous, very specific, science-based criticisms of the 2019 Green, et al. study and provide proof the criticisms don’t present sufficient evidence to ignore the conclusions. You also seem to be doing far more than “Just Watching” the CWF issue.
What should be science-based decisions of our democratic judicial, regulatory and political institutions are ultimately decided by opinions on, and interpretations of, scientific evidence (often by non-scientists) which, unfortunately, can be influenced by strong biases or self-interest. These decisions are one important step away from the establishment of actual, science-based conclusions – a scientific consensus. The scientific process has its own limitations of potential incompetence &/or bias, and that’s why the scientific consensus of relevant experts is critical to any progress in any area of science – otherwise there would be complete chaos as every new “scientific finding” was accepted as legitimate because it was published or in “a poster Neurath presented at a recent scientific conference.”
Bottom line, neither the court case nor the NTP monograph you keep referencing have anything to do with the 75-year scientific consensus that CWF is a safe and effective, science-based, public health measure for reducing the risk of dental decay and related health problems – which do have a significant, harmful impact on citizens.
The arguments and misrepresented science of fluoridation opponents (and vaccination opponents) mirror the arguments and misrepresented science of anti-disinfectant activists. For example, “Historically, drinking water disinfection with chlorine has been extremely successful in addressing bacterial and viral contamination. It has virtually wiped out waterborne diseases like typhoid fever, cholera, and dysentery. However, chlorine disinfection may also cause health risks. When chlorine is added to the water, it not only kills bacteria and viruses, but it also reacts with other chemicals dissolved in the water to form new compounds, known as disinfection byproducts. Some of these byproducts, such as trihalomethanes, are thought to cause cancer and pose other long-term health risks.” (Erin Brockovich)
https://www.vce.org/ErinBrockovichChloramination.html
http://www.vancouversun.com/Anti+chlorination+activist+Reimer/8063917/story.html
Another question – Since the same arguments used by fluoridation opponents apply to water disinfection processes, do you support the anti-chlorination activists? Disinfection with chlorine and other products can cause safety issues – both in transportation and the disinfection process. Disinfection byproducts (DBPs) are found in virtually all treated drinking water. DBPs can cause health problems like cancer and are regulated by the EPA. There have been no RCTs of DBPs on the health of citizens. Etc. Etc. Etc. Why would anyone who is dedicated to protecting the health of their fellow citizens ever condone the use of chlorine to treat drinking water?
You stated, “One would think, given that the claims for CWF fit the definition of a drug, that the FDA would be the go to agency, but because it is considered a contaminant… the EPA regulates it.”
Chlorine can be a deadly poison. “Acute animal tests in rats and mice have shown chlorine to have high acute toxicity via inhalation.”
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/chlorine.pdf
Also, in reference to your claim, “there was a union of employees that formed at the EPA decades back because they felt their scientific work was being over-ruled by political considerations.” Provide specific references to that “EPA Union” – how many individuals were involved, what were the circumstances, where was the union formed, etc.?? I have heard a lot of claims, but have never been shown any details.
“You continue to confuse regulations with science”. –wtheck do you think the EPA is going to look at?
Please don’t link me to “FO” arguments that I haven’t presented and then smear by association.. Just like you started out with the stale trot out of the Ripper meme(great movie!). Chlorine is to treat water, the fluoride compounds are used to treat people.
The NTP just reviewed all the science including the Green study. If you want to go looking for their take, I am sure that it would more intelligent than any response I could make. You are attempting to take down one study out of a body of similar studies as if that ruins the others. In a tit for tat.. the study that you listed above (Broadbent JM, et al. ‘Community water fluoridation and intelligence: prospective study in New Zealand’. Am J Public Health, (2015) was judged by NTP to Be at High Risk of Bias. This is the New Zealand Study that the EPA has relied upon.
“On June 29th, 2000, Dr. William Hirzy was invited to testify before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) Chapter 280 – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Headquarters. His presentation: “Why EPA’s Union of Professionals Opposes Fluoridation.” http://www.cleanwatersonomamarin.org/get-the-facts/hirzy/hirzy-senate-testimony/.. His testimony is at that link. I had to read five lines down on a google search to find it.
You want to debate the FO position as you have read about it, I don’t, I just want legitimate, qualified scientists’ studies findings to be known. The new neurotoxicity science is being viewed quite seriously by the appropriate authorities, both in court, and now again at the EPA, whether you and your source websites care to acknowledge it. I hope you enjoy reading what those good scientists at the EPA had to say twenty years of new science ago!
Loved “I just want legitimate, qualified scientists’ studies findings to be known. The new neurotoxicity science is being viewed quite seriously by the appropriate authorities, both in court, and now again at the EPA, whether you and your source websites care to acknowledge it. I hope you enjoy reading what those good scientists at the EPA had to say twenty years of new science ago!”
This is exactly what people with a better view of their fellow humans respond with when attacked by people who are self serving.
Much appreciated JW.
BF
Just Watching – You seem to be doing far more than “Just Watching” the CWF issue.
I am Just Waiting for you to explain and answer points A-E in my previous comment – as well as provide scientific answers for my request that you address the numerous, very specific, science-based, documented criticisms of the 2019 Green, et al. study and provide science-based explanations. I know enough about statistics and research protocols to understand that the wide-ranging expert criticisms provide sufficient evidence to ignore any conclusions as promoted by fluoridation opponents (FOs).
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/fluoridationInformation-green.html
Judging by NTP’s current evaluation of the “Risk of Bias” status for the Bashash, et al., Green, et al. and related studies, I – and numerous relevant experts – have no reason to trust those classifications. Here is my evaluation of the first Draft NTP Monograph – I haven’t yet commented on the second draft, but they did start to put the statement of “presumed” harm in more of a relevant context by stating early that evidence that effects of CWF on “cognitive neurodevelopment are inconsistent, and therefore unclear.”
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-QuestionsForNTP.html
The NTP review, regardless of outcome, is only a relatively small piece in the overall continuing evaluation of the scientific consensus on CWF. At the moment, a considerable weight of scientific expertise has found significant limitations with the studies provided to the NTP by FAN as well as the NTP conclusions to date.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the second revision, but again, a single conclusion by a single group does not change a scientific consensus of experts.
You claim to “just want legitimate, qualified scientists’ studies findings to be known. That is precisely what every legitimate, honest scientist wants. However, it is the majority of relevant scientists who determine whether a study is legitimate in reference to a specific scientific conclusion. The studies presented by FAN to the court have serious limitations – that is why the scientific consensus regarding CWF has not changed.
Dr. Bill Hirzy, a FAN consultant, is a long-time, recognized FO. A senate testimony does not represent any scientific consensus of relevant experts. In July 2017 I wrote Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, the organization which FOs claim supported the anti-F agenda. The response from the current Senior Vice President, Joe Edgell, was clear, “We do not support a public position of fluoridation.” The entire union never signed off on the original statement. Provide specific, documented evidence of claims before posting.
From what I have read, the foundation for Hirzy’s allegation that the EPA opposes fluoridation occurred on July 2, 1997, when 20 EPA employees who opposed fluoridation attended a meeting of Chapter 280 of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE). At that time, EPA had approximately 18,000 employees, and Chapter 280 of NFFE represented 1000-1600 of them. Because those 20 EPA employees constituted a majority of the union members attending the meeting, they were able to adopt a resolution opposing California’s mandatory fluoridation law.
If you have any legitimate documented proof and specific facts (besides a claim from an anti-fluoridation organization) that provides specific details for that claim – or the statement that “in 2005, more than 7000 EPA professionals urged that the safe level of fluoride in drinking water be set at zero.” – provide it. How many individuals (and what percentage) actually signed any of the statements and under what circumstances, for example? Then there will be something specific to discuss. The 2005 letter by Hirzy and others to the EPA (RE: Bone Cancer-Fluoride Link) apparently produced no results, and as far as I am aware, there are currently no cancer organizations that warn of a link between CWF and cancer. Hirzy’s 2000 presentation to the Senate committee was nothing but his anti-F interpretation of his selected “evidence”.
Your “Chlorine is to treat water, the fluoride compounds are used to treat people.” reinforces my conclusion that you are spinning definitions to suit your agenda. Chlorine and disinfection byproducts also “treat people”, but you ignore that fact because the “treatment” is not beneficial. Any chemical or chemical compound you choose will “treat people”. Whether they treat the body well or badly depends both on the chemicals and the exposure levels. At low levels fluorine treats the body well and reduces dental decay, and it treats the body poorly at high exposure levels. Disinfection byproducts don’t treat the body well at any level, but they are not considered too dangerous in regulated disinfected water to outweigh the benefits of disinfection. Water treats the body well and is essential at low to moderate levels of exposure, but can kill at high exposure levels – 5-10 times the recommended level.
I am not debating the FO’s position as I “have read about it”. I am presenting facts and questioning your acceptance of judicial rulings and a single review as any legitimate reason to change the 75-year scientific consensus that CWF is safe and effective.
Why are you willing to accept the interpretation of a relatively small group of outlier activists when they have chosen to mostly abandon working within the scientific community to present and support their evidence, and have chosen instead to hijack the democratic and scientific processes and take their arguments directly to the public, elected officials and the courts? If the anti-F scientists actually have high quality, impartial, relevant evidence to support their position and work within the scientific community, the scientific consensus will change. They don’t, and that’s why they have largely, except for the NTP review, abandoned the scientific process.
Randy, I’ll make it real simple for you.
Look for the epidemiological studies on the release of aersolized particles in the atmosphere.
Aluminum to be specific.
Then look at the rising levels on Mt Shasta.
If you want fluoride, then go down to the store/pharmacy and knock yourself out.
Forced medication is not to be taken lightly, unless you believe someone else’s poor eating habits can be remedied by water fluoridation.
Privatization of profit.
Socializing the loss.
Wouldit be safe to assume that your are pro mandatory vaccinations?
I am happy to have presented to the reading public the good news about the TSCA process proceeding along keeping the EPA’s toes to the fire. FAN: “A major reason we brought this lawsuit was because the EPA is glacially slow at developing regulations to protect human health from toxic chemicals. The TSCA statutes’ Section 21 provision allows citizen’s groups to bring scientific evidence before an impartial court and jump start the regulatory process for chemicals that EPA has avoided for years, if not decades”. Daily trial summaries were being provided by the legal news website Law360, but registration with a “non-free email domain” is required to read the full articles.
Hirzy’s information was whistleblower grade information gleaned from year’s of observations of foul play with science by scientists of conscience at the EPA trying to do their best job. And once again, he brought attention to the critical concept of setting a proper margin of safety….. which the TSCA process is going to force the EPA to do.
Here is one of the “outliers”, as you call them, who was a witness at June trial- a summary from FAN: “Day 2 certainly lived up to expectations and more. It featured just one witness: Philippe Grandjean MD, ScD. He testified from his home in Denmark. Dr Grandjean is both a medical doctor and scientist and an internationally known expert in environmental epidemiology, with ties to both Harvard School of Public Health and the University of Southern Denmark.
Dr Grandjean was the second expert witness to “take the stand” pitting Fluoride Action Network, Moms Against Fluoridation, and Food and Water Watch, and several other plaintiffs against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.
He has held grants and/or consulted with the EPA itself, the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the World Health Organization, and numerous other bodies over 25 years. He is the author or co-author of some 500 scientific papers.
Grandjean is also the author of the book, Only One Chance, in which he warns of the dangers of exposing children to neurotoxicants during early development, especially during the fetal stage. Subtle changes here can last a lifetime. As a society we have literally “only once chance” to prevent this early exposure- and if we don’t do it the consequences last a lifetime, with serious consequences for the individual and the population as a whole.
As a witness Grandjean was knowledgeable, credible and was clearly concerned about public health, especially the mental development of children.
Grandjean is perhaps best known worldwide for his work in the Faroes Islands where his research on the neurotoxicity of mercury involved studying the IQ of children born to mothers whose diet was high in fish consumption (and thence high in mercury). This work led to defining the EPA’s safe regulatory levels for mercury in the diet. In fact, Grandjean is the EPA’s go-to-person when it comes to anything pertaining to the neurotoxicity of mercury. Thus, the Department of Justice of lawyer representing the US EPA, Debra Carfora, had a formidable job trying to undermine his credibility since they have relied on him for his expert advice on mercury and other neurotoxicants. Why we would they disregard his advice on fluoride?
Grandjean, like all the expert witnesses, had presented to the court his testimony in a prefiled Declaratory statement. Michael Connett, lawyer for the plaintiffs took him through this statement and his research on fluoride.
Grandjean has worked on fluoride since the 1980s when at the suggestion of Irving Selikoff (Selikoff was the founder in 1966, of the Environmental and Occupational Health Division of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, and is known as the “father” of asbestos research) he looked into the health effects of cryolite workers (cryolite is a mineral containing fluoride and used in the manufacture of aluminium. It is also approved for use today as a pesticide on vegetables and fruits). Not only did the workers (exposed to the dust) have the expected symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, but they exhibited other health problems including neurological symptoms.
But as far as “our” fluoridation world was concerned Grandjean’s name came into prominence when he published a meta-analysis of 27 fluoride-IQ (all but two from China) which found – even though they were conducted in many different geographical areas, by different research teams over a period of about 20 years – a remarkably consistent result (Choi et al., 2012). Of these 27 studies, 26 found a lowering of IQ in the children with higher fluoride exposure. Under questioning from Michael Connett, lawyer for the plaintiffs, Grandjean explained that for this review he had help from two prominent researchers from China who were able to read the Chinese versions of many of these papers and were able to provide useful background information about the communities involved. These communities were nearly all rural and with highly stable populations – so that any levels of fluoride measured were likely to give an indication of exposure throughout the children’s lives including the fetal stage. So despite the weaknesses of many of these ecological studies (comparing two different communities with different fluoride exposure, but without individual measurements) the overall take-home message was that they were highly consistent and important findings.
During this testimony Grandjean gave a little bit of interesting history which revealed a lot about the way that pro-fluoridation forces have set out to discredit any study or any researcher who has the temerity to publish a study indicating any harm from fluoride. DOJ lawyer Carfora asked Grandjean about a statement he made about his paper for the Harvard University press department, which said that his work had no relevance to the USA fluoridation program. He said, ‘okay, you really want to know?’ He said that a member of the Harvard Dental department was enraged by the paper and had worked with the press department to obtain this statement as well as getting the Deans of the Medical School and Dental school and one other to put out a statement endorsing the “safety and effectiveness” of water fluoridation. Grandjean also related earlier efforts by the fluoridation lobby to infiltrate a World Health Organization committee on which he sat, in an effort to exclude any mention of fluoride’s harmful effects. When Grandjean saw this happening he resigned from the committee.
Back to the TSCA trial. Plaintiffs had asked Grandjean to do a review of the literature since his famous 2012 meta-analysis, to include the most recent US government-funded studies. Not only did Grandjean do this review but he also quantified the risk of IQ loss from fluoride to children based upon the Bashash 2017 and the Green 2019 (Canadian study) mother-offspring studies.
For this analysis, Grandjean did what is called a Benchmark Dose (BMD) study (using methods that he and his colleagues have pioneered) and used by the EPA. He concluded that a safe reference dose (RfD) be no higher than 0.15 mg per day to protect against a loss of one IQ point (this was referred to as the BMDL, with L standing for the level at which the benchmark response -a loss of one IQ point- would be expected based upon linear regression). This was well below the exposure levels experienced by the pregnant women (and passed to the fetus) in the Bashash and Green studies.
A dose of 0.15 mg of fluoride day would be reached by a pregnant mother drinking just one glass of fluoridated tap water a day. No parent would agree that a loss or one IQ point or more is a reasonable risk to take in order to achieve a very small benefit to teeth later in their lives. There are few scientists who now believe that any benefit accrues to the teeth during the fetal stage or early infancy when the greatest risks to the developing brain occur.
On cross-examination lawyers for the DOJ did their best to challenge Grandjean’s credentials which was both silly and a little insulting (Do you actually teach classes at Harvard? Do you have a PhD? Do you have a PhD in Toxicokinetics, Biometrics etc).
Then they asked him if he did a “systematic review” before he drew his conclusions about fluoride being a neurotoxic hazard. Grandjean answered that he did a thorough review of the literature which would have satisfied the EPA up to about two years ago, and moreover he read the systematic review provide by experts from Exponent and found no studies that would have reversed his position that fluoride was a neurotoxic “Hazard.” Thus he felt comfortable proceeding to use the findings of the best studies in the field to do his quantitative analysis (BMD analysis). In other words, he used the linear dose response relationships found in both the Bashash and Green studies to determine a safe reference to protect against loss of one IQ point in children.
In short, adding fluoride to the public drinking water presents a serious risk to the mental development of future generations of children and should end.
Grandjean found “no reasonable doubt that developmental neurotoxicity” was “a serious human health risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure.” That exposure, he said, is “occurring at the levels added to drinking water in fluoridated areas.”
Dr Grandjean was questioned for approximately 5 hours via Zoom by lawyers for both sides.
Debra Carfora, a DOJ lawyer for the defense team, attempted to disqualify Grandjean’s testimony in a lengthy cross-examination, but her motion to do so was denied by the court.” summary by Paul Connett–
I would rather talk about the trial evidence than engage with you about things you want to talk about, and if you continue to insist that I address your questions. I will simply post another days TCSA trial court FAN summary, with testimony from those you deem “outliers” (witness declarations are available at http://fluoridealert.org/issues/tsca-fluoride-trial/ )…
I am glad that you are smart enough to submit your criticisms to the appropriate agencies. I hope that it helps advance the determination of the best science available.
But again, we are talking about the difference of 1.5ppm concentration being a presumed neurotoxin and the current recommended .07 ppm in water that is supposed to be safe.I would like to remind readers how many analogies have been used by CWF promoters to show that .7 or the old 1ppm (1mg/liter) is like one little teensy-weensy drop in a huge amount of water… wouldn’t it be logical that if one half of a teensy weensy drop is the difference between damaging a babies brain and not….GO PRECAUTIONARY.
I am choosing to endorse the views of the former head of the Linda Birnbaum, PhD, Scientist Emeritus and Former Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health who signed on an op ed that said:
“Many health and dental organizations in North America recommend community water fluoridation. Given the weight of evidence that fluoride is toxic to the developing brain, it is time for health organizations and regulatory bodies to review their recommendations and regulations to ensure they protect pregnant women and their children.
We can act now by recommending that pregnant women and infants reduce their fluoride intake.
Specialized water filtration systems can be used to remove fluoride from tap water for pregnant women and infants fed formula. Pregnant women can also avoid black tea, which hyper-accumulates fluoride. The good news for all women is that there is little fluoride in breast milk. Bottled water typically contains lower amounts of fluoride than fluoridated tap water.’
https://www.ehn.org/fluoride-and-childrens-health-2648120286.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1
To you she may be an “outlier”, to me she is a hero.
IQ loss in support of healthy teeth.
Now fast forward and make a very educationed comparison to the mask mandate.
Forced sars cov2 vaccinations in support of ???
One thing is for certain, once you establish a precedent to subvert the ability of a free people, to choose, it shouldn’t take a PhD to recognize the patterns in the method.
Privatization of profit. Socializing the losses.
Blue Fraud – Have you volunteered to help move dead bodies out of hospital ICU beds to make room for the new wave of COVID infections? Sounds like you have no qualms about gathering in huge crowds without a mask or social distancing then going back to visit family and friends. Perhaps you and everyone you know may be at low risk of contracting COVID, and you may not care about the health of others, but so far this year there have been about 244,810 deaths from COVID — compared with about 24,000 – 62,000 deaths from influenza 2019-2020. What is your solution to COVID – just let it charge unchecked through the population and infect (and possibly immunize) most people and kill the rest? That’s largely how pandemics have been handled in the past – a good way to keep the population in check, right? How about science-based treatments, should those be ignored?
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_totaldeaths
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm
Randy .
I lost both parents this year.
There are still plenty of things more deadly than covid, buddy.
So excuse me for not giving one fuck about your covid circus amusement park.
I watched the covid hype and it makes me sick to watch people so enamored by the CGI of the covid industrial complex.
Try telling the next person breathing the fresh air to put a mask on, and you might just get an ear infection.
You should look at FAUCI and Gates workin together in wuhan.
Some people will believe anything the experts tell them.
Not I.
Survival of the fittest isn’t just for BILLIONAIRES.
To be perfectly honest, lots of people who’ve made poor decisions their entire lives, and now they got health issues, and think I give a rats ass about them wanting everyone to wear a piece of cloth that has no guarantees to stop covid.
It says right on the package.
I didn’t weaponize a flu virus, the Gates FAUCI team did.
BFraud – So, what is your solution to mitigate the spread and consequences of deadly, infectious diseases?
https://www.livescience.com/13694-devastating-infectious-diseases-smallpox-plague.html
Just watchin – you did Not post a comment, you write books. Start your own site, post is waaaaaaaayyyyyy too long with no redeeming qualities. Like oh so many people.
You might try watching cartoons or MSM, they usually have enough short sound bites for those with attention deficit dis order.
There IS plenty of relevant information in JDUBS POSTS.
.Bad error alert… It should read .7ppm, not .07. –” But again, we are talking about the difference of 1.5ppm concentration being a presumed neurotoxin and the current recommended .7 ppm in water that is supposed to be safe”. My apologies.
Just Watching — I am insisting on nothing, just pointing out facts. It is certainly understandable, however, that you are either unwilling or unable to discuss how legitimate, important scientific decisions regarding public health care policies are made or address the fact that the major science/health organizations in the world support CWF. You also seem unwilling or unable to address the major criticisms of the Green, et al. study and provide any rationale for accepting even the only conclusions reached – a possible slight association between IQ and fluoride exposure (negative in boys & positive in girls).
I have pointed out that there is no expert support (recognized science/health organizations) for the anti-F opinions besides a few vocal outliers – you apparently don’t have any explanation for that fact. You seem to think a few anti-F “experts” presenting their carefully selected “evidence” to a judge constitutes a scientific debate or some reason to accept their arguments as legitimate. That tactic may influence a court ruling, but it has nothing to do with whether or not the evidence is judged valid by the majority of relevant scientists.
It’s called freedom of information, Randy, that is why we have a freedom of information act?
Perhaps, because we recognize that much of the worlds suffering comes from very well intentioned people who are sheep dipped to carry out an agenda that literally acts as a soft kill.
One thing you lack, Randy, is the perspective of evil people who can lie, cheat, steal, kill, and still tuck their children into bed at night.
Free yourself from the ties that bind good men to bad solutions.
BFraud – So, you don’t lack “the perspective of evil people who can lie, cheat, steal, kill, and still tuck their children into bed at night.”???
I am of the perspective that: United We Stand, Divided We Fall*.
United in working together, overcoming differences and compromising on solutions to help everyone in our country/world live a decent life.
Or
Divided by fierce ideologies that refuse any solution except complete surrender of every perceived opponent.
Our democratic process was established on the foundation and expectation that individuals of integrity work together for the greater good of “We the People of the United States”.
Unfortunately, the current angry divisiveness and stubborn inflexibility on both sides of the political spectrum have made uniting for the common good a real challenge.
Free yourself from the fervent partisanship that binds good men to bad solutions.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_we_stand,_divided_we_fall
There is no reliable evidence that fluoridation causes harm at 0.7 parts per million.