30 Apr 2009
29 Apr 2009
28 Apr 2009
.JPG)
27 Apr 2009
Serum Fluoride and Sialic Acid Levels in Osteosarcoma
Serum Fluoride and Sialic Acid Levels in Osteosarcoma.Sandhu R, Lal H, Kundu ZS, Kharb S.
Department of Biochemistry, Pt B D Sharma University of Health Sciences, H No 1447, sector-1, Urban Estate, Rohtak, 124001, Haryana, India.
Osteosarcoma is a rare malignant bone tumor most commonly occurring in children and young adults presenting with painful swelling. Various etiological factors for osteosarcoma are ionizing radiation, family history of bone disorders and cancer, chemicals (fluoride, beryllium, and vinyl chloride), and viruses. Status of fluoride levels in serum of osteosarcoma is still not clear. Recent reports have indicated that there is a link between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma. Glycoproteins and glycosaminoglycans are an integral part of bone and prolonged exposure to fluoride for long duration has been shown to cause degradation of collagen and ground substance in bones. The present study was planned to analyze serum fluoride, sialic acid, calcium, phosphorus, and alkaline phosphatase levels in 25 patients of osteosarcoma and age- and sex-matched subjects with bone-forming tumours other than osteosarcoma and musculo-skeletal pain (controls, 25 each). Fluoride levels were analyzed by ISE and sialic acid was analyzed by Warren's method. Mean serum fluoride concentration was found to be significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma as compared to the other two groups. The mean value of flouride in patients with other bone-forming tumors was approximately 50% of the group of osteosarcoma; however, it was significantly higher when compared with patients of group I. Serum sialic acid concentration was found to be significantly raised in patients with osteosarcoma as well as in the group with other bone-forming tumors as compared to the group of controls. There was, however, no significant difference in the group of patients of osteosarcoma when compared with group of patients with other bone-forming tumors. These results showing higher level of fluoride with osteosarcoma compared to others suggesting a role of fluoride in the disease.
PMID: 19390788 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
osteosarcoma - rare bone cancer in boys - I suppose Barry Cockcroft, Liam Donaldson and the SHA will ignore this as well, they believe that fluoride only affects the teeth
Department of Biochemistry, Pt B D Sharma University of Health Sciences, H No 1447, sector-1, Urban Estate, Rohtak, 124001, Haryana, India.
Osteosarcoma is a rare malignant bone tumor most commonly occurring in children and young adults presenting with painful swelling. Various etiological factors for osteosarcoma are ionizing radiation, family history of bone disorders and cancer, chemicals (fluoride, beryllium, and vinyl chloride), and viruses. Status of fluoride levels in serum of osteosarcoma is still not clear. Recent reports have indicated that there is a link between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma. Glycoproteins and glycosaminoglycans are an integral part of bone and prolonged exposure to fluoride for long duration has been shown to cause degradation of collagen and ground substance in bones. The present study was planned to analyze serum fluoride, sialic acid, calcium, phosphorus, and alkaline phosphatase levels in 25 patients of osteosarcoma and age- and sex-matched subjects with bone-forming tumours other than osteosarcoma and musculo-skeletal pain (controls, 25 each). Fluoride levels were analyzed by ISE and sialic acid was analyzed by Warren's method. Mean serum fluoride concentration was found to be significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma as compared to the other two groups. The mean value of flouride in patients with other bone-forming tumors was approximately 50% of the group of osteosarcoma; however, it was significantly higher when compared with patients of group I. Serum sialic acid concentration was found to be significantly raised in patients with osteosarcoma as well as in the group with other bone-forming tumors as compared to the group of controls. There was, however, no significant difference in the group of patients of osteosarcoma when compared with group of patients with other bone-forming tumors. These results showing higher level of fluoride with osteosarcoma compared to others suggesting a role of fluoride in the disease.
PMID: 19390788 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
osteosarcoma - rare bone cancer in boys - I suppose Barry Cockcroft, Liam Donaldson and the SHA will ignore this as well, they believe that fluoride only affects the teeth
25 Apr 2009
22 Apr 2009
Daily Echo - In my view
Olga Senior
Director of communications and corportate affairs at the South Central Strategic Health Authority
The facts on fluoridation'
IN response to the In My View piece by Chris Barker (Daily Echo, April 6) I think it would be useful to set out some of the facts relating to the decision to add fluoride to the local water supply made by the board of South Central Strategic Health Authority.
The issues surrounding the public consultation are more complex than Mr Barker indicates in his article and he has not reported the results of the consultation in their entirety.
In 2003 MPs in a free vote in Parliament passed legislation which gave powers to strategic health authorities to make decisions on increasing the level of fluoride in water supplies following a public consultation.
South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) carried out a consultation in line with the relevant legislation and the results of that consultation show that there is no clear majority view on this issue amongst the people who would be affected in the area.
Yes, 72 per cent of those people who chose to respond in writing to the consultation were opposed to it. However, responses to public consultations are not representative of the views of everyone in an area.
As is normal in any consultation, regardless of the issue, those people who either strongly support or strongly oppose an issue are likely to respond in writing. That is why the SHA commissioned an independent phone survey of a large sample of randomly selected local people to gather their views on this issue.
Phone surveys carried out in this way are far more representative and give a better indication of local opinion than written responses to a consultation. The results showed that there was no majority view on this issue among local people -despite many claims by groups that there is. 32 per cent of people surveyed supported the proposal, 38 per cent opposed it whilst the remainder either did not know or neither supported or opposed it.
The survey showed that a quarter of those opposed to water fluoridation did so because of concerns it causes long-term side effects, something which is not backed up by any of the reputable, systematic reviews.
It is evident that there are small numbers of people in the local area who, during the consultation and since the decision was made, are intent on generating fear.
The conclusion was that the health arguments in favour of water fluoridation outweigh all other arguments against it.
There are some people dissatisfied with the decision the SHA has made given the polarising nature of the issue.
However the SHA is satisfied, along with major professional health organisations such as the World Health Organisation, the British Medical Association and the British Dental Association, that water fluoridation is safe and effective.
Director of communications and corportate affairs at the South Central Strategic Health Authority
The facts on fluoridation'
IN response to the In My View piece by Chris Barker (Daily Echo, April 6) I think it would be useful to set out some of the facts relating to the decision to add fluoride to the local water supply made by the board of South Central Strategic Health Authority.
The issues surrounding the public consultation are more complex than Mr Barker indicates in his article and he has not reported the results of the consultation in their entirety.
In 2003 MPs in a free vote in Parliament passed legislation which gave powers to strategic health authorities to make decisions on increasing the level of fluoride in water supplies following a public consultation.
South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) carried out a consultation in line with the relevant legislation and the results of that consultation show that there is no clear majority view on this issue amongst the people who would be affected in the area.
Yes, 72 per cent of those people who chose to respond in writing to the consultation were opposed to it. However, responses to public consultations are not representative of the views of everyone in an area.
As is normal in any consultation, regardless of the issue, those people who either strongly support or strongly oppose an issue are likely to respond in writing. That is why the SHA commissioned an independent phone survey of a large sample of randomly selected local people to gather their views on this issue.
Phone surveys carried out in this way are far more representative and give a better indication of local opinion than written responses to a consultation. The results showed that there was no majority view on this issue among local people -despite many claims by groups that there is. 32 per cent of people surveyed supported the proposal, 38 per cent opposed it whilst the remainder either did not know or neither supported or opposed it.
The survey showed that a quarter of those opposed to water fluoridation did so because of concerns it causes long-term side effects, something which is not backed up by any of the reputable, systematic reviews.
It is evident that there are small numbers of people in the local area who, during the consultation and since the decision was made, are intent on generating fear.
The conclusion was that the health arguments in favour of water fluoridation outweigh all other arguments against it.
There are some people dissatisfied with the decision the SHA has made given the polarising nature of the issue.
However the SHA is satisfied, along with major professional health organisations such as the World Health Organisation, the British Medical Association and the British Dental Association, that water fluoridation is safe and effective.
21 Apr 2009
UK - Southampton Daily Echo
In my view
By
Stephen Peckham
of Southampton.
Reader in health policy at the Department of Puofc Health and Policy
There must be open debate
I AM surprised that Professor Michael Lennon, chairman of the British Fluoridation Society, feels he has to attack me personally rather than focus on the issues surrounding water fluoridation and am not sure why he states that I "stoop to new depths".
My concern is that there should be open debate and, far from "denigrating eminent colleagues", I expressed disappointment that the vice president of the Faculty of Public Hearth, did not provide a more balanced picture of the facts. In response to Professor Lennon, my "cause" is to ensure the good use of evidence to promote ethically sound public health policy.
In his Soapbox piece, Professor Lennon chooses to focus on dental fluorosis but ignores much of the latest evidence on its extent and impact. At fluoride concentrations of 1ppm, as advocated for Southampton, a study in 2000 conducted in Newcastle found that 54 per cent of eight to nine year olds experienced some level of dental fluorosis.
While it is correct to state that most fluorosis produces a pearlised or white flecking, it is widely accepted that a proportion of affected children will experience brown staining and possible damage to the enamel of their teeth. Indeed, the most recent systematic review on fluoridation in Australia puts the estimate of fluorosis of more than aesthetic concern at ten per cent with other studies showing the more severe forms averaging between two and three per cent.
Research has consistently shown that adolescents with brown staining report negative views about their appearance and a 2006 UK study found that young people viewed dental fluorosis more negatively than dental decay.
It is not just about teeth - dental fluorosis is an indicator of fluoride absorption in the body. Evidence suggests that increasingly many people, particularly young children, are in danger of exceeding accepted safe limits of fluoride intake.
While the British Fluoridation Society has a mission to extend and promote water fluoridation - including through misinformation for which they have been criticised in Parliament -my concern is that we do not simply follow a policy based on evidence that is recognised as being of poor quality.
Our common goal should be to ensure that the people of Southampton are supported in attaining good dental health through effective community based and targeted measures as has been achieved elsewhere.
By
Stephen Peckham
of Southampton.
Reader in health policy at the Department of Puofc Health and Policy
There must be open debate
I AM surprised that Professor Michael Lennon, chairman of the British Fluoridation Society, feels he has to attack me personally rather than focus on the issues surrounding water fluoridation and am not sure why he states that I "stoop to new depths".
My concern is that there should be open debate and, far from "denigrating eminent colleagues", I expressed disappointment that the vice president of the Faculty of Public Hearth, did not provide a more balanced picture of the facts. In response to Professor Lennon, my "cause" is to ensure the good use of evidence to promote ethically sound public health policy.
In his Soapbox piece, Professor Lennon chooses to focus on dental fluorosis but ignores much of the latest evidence on its extent and impact. At fluoride concentrations of 1ppm, as advocated for Southampton, a study in 2000 conducted in Newcastle found that 54 per cent of eight to nine year olds experienced some level of dental fluorosis.
While it is correct to state that most fluorosis produces a pearlised or white flecking, it is widely accepted that a proportion of affected children will experience brown staining and possible damage to the enamel of their teeth. Indeed, the most recent systematic review on fluoridation in Australia puts the estimate of fluorosis of more than aesthetic concern at ten per cent with other studies showing the more severe forms averaging between two and three per cent.
Research has consistently shown that adolescents with brown staining report negative views about their appearance and a 2006 UK study found that young people viewed dental fluorosis more negatively than dental decay.
It is not just about teeth - dental fluorosis is an indicator of fluoride absorption in the body. Evidence suggests that increasingly many people, particularly young children, are in danger of exceeding accepted safe limits of fluoride intake.
While the British Fluoridation Society has a mission to extend and promote water fluoridation - including through misinformation for which they have been criticised in Parliament -my concern is that we do not simply follow a policy based on evidence that is recognised as being of poor quality.
Our common goal should be to ensure that the people of Southampton are supported in attaining good dental health through effective community based and targeted measures as has been achieved elsewhere.
20 Apr 2009
19 Apr 2009
Fluoride varnish
If I knew nothing about it I would say what a simple way to prevent cavities but it is a poison. He is bound to swallow a lot of it. Far better give him the right diet cut out sweets from doting grandparents and Aunts.
But why doesn't the City PCT apply this to the inner city children's teeth who are at risk from dental decay rather than poison all of us.
nyscof said...
there is 26,000 parts per million fluorie in those varnishes. Some is swallowed. Some is absorbed into the saystem. And what happens as the varnish wears off the teeth - wear does it go - inhaled, absorbed, swallowed????
No studies done on adverse effects, of course. So there is no evidence. That's the way it goes until someone(s) get deathly ill or dies.
18 Apr 2009
17 Apr 2009
16 Apr 2009
14 Apr 2009
13 Apr 2009
NEW DVD from FAN: NOW AVAILABLE!
Professional Perspectives on Water FluoridationAre you looking for a tool to educate your city councilors, friends, and community about the problems with water fluoridation? Are you looking for a credible, science-based, yet easy-to-understand summary of the issue? If so, than look no further, as Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation was designed for that very purpose.
Featuring a Nobel Laureate in Medicine, three scientists from the National Research Council's landmark review on fluoride, as well as dentists, medical doctors, and leading researchers in the field, this professionally-produced 28-minute DVD presents a powerful indictment of the fluoridation program.
The DVD also includes four special features including Dr. Bill Osmunson's acclaimed statement on fluoride. A great resource for anyone involved in the issue.
Title #260929
Format: DVD-R
12 Apr 2009
FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
http://www.FluorideAlert.org
FAN Bulletin 1062: Professional Perspectives DVD now ready to order online
April 11, 2009
At last, the new FAN video "Professional Perspectives on Fluoridation," featuring commentary from 15 different experts (including a Nobel prize winner and three members of the National Research Council panel), is now available for ordering on line. This 28-minute video comes in DVD format in a very attractive case and costs a very modest $19.95. It can be ordered online at https://www.createspace.com/260929. The opening of the video and three excerpts can be viewed from our home page - top item.
We believe that this is the ideal tool to educate your decision makers, your colleagues and your friends.
The DVD allows viewers to watch the 28-minute piece in its entirety or in 14 separate segments. The DVD also contains the four previously issued vignettes featuring Dr. Bill Osmunson (now viewed by over 145,000 people); Dr. Vyvyan Howard; Brent Foster and several experts taking about fluoride and the kidney.
We give you our permission for public showing of this DVD (and/or the four vignettes) and also urge our readers to try to get this DVD on local access cable TV. Please let us know if you are successful in that quest.
We also give permission to our readers to make copies of this video, so that you can get it to all and sundry - especially your local officials. We ask that you make no changes to the video or to the labels or to the box and that the video cannot be sold. Anyone who wants to use excerpts of the video needs to contact us at info@fluoridealert.org
We believe that this is the perfect antidote to the PR of the fluoridation promoters who like to claim that opponents of fluoridation do not know what they are talking about and the science that they cite is "junk science."
We firmly believe that as more and more professionals watch this DVD - as well as read the voluminous material on our web site - that it will spell the end of fluoridation worldwide. Fortunately we will have a barometer as to how well we are doing in that respect and that is the number of signers of the Professionals' statement. Please keep this in mind when you share this DVD with your dentist, doctor and other professionals. Our current total stands at 2,394 (see http://www.fluoridealert.org/professionals.statement.html)
Paul Connett
http://www.FluorideAlert.org
FAN Bulletin 1062: Professional Perspectives DVD now ready to order online
April 11, 2009
At last, the new FAN video "Professional Perspectives on Fluoridation," featuring commentary from 15 different experts (including a Nobel prize winner and three members of the National Research Council panel), is now available for ordering on line. This 28-minute video comes in DVD format in a very attractive case and costs a very modest $19.95. It can be ordered online at https://www.createspace.com/260929. The opening of the video and three excerpts can be viewed from our home page - top item.
We believe that this is the ideal tool to educate your decision makers, your colleagues and your friends.
The DVD allows viewers to watch the 28-minute piece in its entirety or in 14 separate segments. The DVD also contains the four previously issued vignettes featuring Dr. Bill Osmunson (now viewed by over 145,000 people); Dr. Vyvyan Howard; Brent Foster and several experts taking about fluoride and the kidney.
We give you our permission for public showing of this DVD (and/or the four vignettes) and also urge our readers to try to get this DVD on local access cable TV. Please let us know if you are successful in that quest.
We also give permission to our readers to make copies of this video, so that you can get it to all and sundry - especially your local officials. We ask that you make no changes to the video or to the labels or to the box and that the video cannot be sold. Anyone who wants to use excerpts of the video needs to contact us at info@fluoridealert.org
We believe that this is the perfect antidote to the PR of the fluoridation promoters who like to claim that opponents of fluoridation do not know what they are talking about and the science that they cite is "junk science."
We firmly believe that as more and more professionals watch this DVD - as well as read the voluminous material on our web site - that it will spell the end of fluoridation worldwide. Fortunately we will have a barometer as to how well we are doing in that respect and that is the number of signers of the Professionals' statement. Please keep this in mind when you share this DVD with your dentist, doctor and other professionals. Our current total stands at 2,394 (see http://www.fluoridealert.org/professionals.statement.html)
Paul Connett
10 Apr 2009
Both URLs will take you to prepared letters for your MP - may need Java enabled to activate web page.
John-Denham-Letter
Alan-Whitehead-Letter
To toggle between full screen click small square within square, top right on Scribd menu and to switch back click the Scribd "X" top right.
How to Complain
John-Denham-Letter
Alan-Whitehead-Letter
To toggle between full screen click small square within square, top right on Scribd menu and to switch back click the Scribd "X" top right.
How to Complain
City Councillor List
To toggle between full screen click small square within square, top right on Scribd menu and to switch back click the Scribd "X" top right.
Councillor List
Councillor List
8 Apr 2009
SHA answer on board member's apparent ignorance
When I attended the recent Strategic Health Authority meeting where all the 12 members of the board ignored the 72% of the 10,000 submissions against fluoridation and imposed it on us Katherine Fenton a board member put a question to Prof Newton another board member.
This is what Katherine Fenton actually said.
"Question about fluorosis - who gets fluorosis and once they've got it, is it forever or or is it every age range who gets it?"
When I wrote asking how could a board member be so ignorant after three month's intensive consultation this is the reply I got.
With regard to a Board member's question on whether fluorosis was permanent, you will appreciate that, on occasions, an issue may be in order to inform the general debate, rather than because the individual concerned is unaware of the answer. The question on the permanence of fluorosis would be a valid question for a member of the public to require an answer to and did not necessarily reflect the knowledge of
the Director concerned.
Question - was Katherine asking because she did not know or asking for the benefit of the public?
Bearing in mind that the public who were there on sufferance as the chairman said it was not a public meeting but a board meeting in public.
This is what Katherine Fenton actually said.
"Question about fluorosis - who gets fluorosis and once they've got it, is it forever or or is it every age range who gets it?"
When I wrote asking how could a board member be so ignorant after three month's intensive consultation this is the reply I got.
With regard to a Board member's question on whether fluorosis was permanent, you will appreciate that, on occasions, an issue may be in order to inform the general debate, rather than because the individual concerned is unaware of the answer. The question on the permanence of fluorosis would be a valid question for a member of the public to require an answer to and did not necessarily reflect the knowledge of
the Director concerned.
Question - was Katherine asking because she did not know or asking for the benefit of the public?
Bearing in mind that the public who were there on sufferance as the chairman said it was not a public meeting but a board meeting in public.
7 Apr 2009
Daily Echo
If Professor Lennon was chairman of the British Lead Society he no doubt would be extolling the benefits of putting lead in in petrol.
6 Apr 2009
Daily Echo In my View
Chris Barker of Sholing Southampton
Stand up for democracyIT is a sad reflection on the state of democracy under this present Government, when a group at 12 unelected petty officials feel that they can, with impunity, get away with total disregard to the clearly expressed opinions of a 72 per cent majority of respondents to a public consultation.
It is an even sadder reflection on the two Southampton MPs that they have not spoken out against this decision. Their silence on this Issue speaks volumes when It comes to representing the democratic wishes of the people of Southampton. This m something I thought they were elected to do, and is something thepeople of Southampton should remember at the next general ejection.I do not care if the local MPs are in favour of fluoridation or not, irrespective of their views on this subject or any other subject for that matter, if democracy has been attacked in the way that the decision on fluoridation attacked it, any MP of any party, purporting to represent the public whose democratic voice has been so blatantly ignored, should be calling for the removal from office of those persons responsible, and for the immediate restitution ofdemocracy by the decision being declared invalid,Any MPs who support the decision of a morally bankrupt group of unelected individuals to declare war on democracy must ask themselves if they are any longer capable of, truly and without bias, representing the views of their constituents, Certainly on the issue of fluoridation it would appear not. it is sad that it has been necessary to put a petition en the 10 Downing Street website asking for democracy to be restored. Please sign up to it at petitions10.gov.uk/democracyHants/ if you support democracy in this country and please tell your friends about it. Our MPs, if they are truly representing us, should be pressuring the Prime Minister to make sure consultations are no longer a blatant sham by unelected, biased, officials.This Issue is no longer about fluoride or the rights or wrongs of it, The issue is far bigger than that now. The issue Is the peoples right to fundamental democracy.If you wish to live in a democratic society then be prepared to stand up for democracy. Nobody else wiil do it for you. It is your right, fight for it.Do not let any Government, of any political party, water down democracy and especially do not let them hand over power to unelected officials.
Otherwise before you know it you may even lose the right to vote for who governs the country.
Stand up for democracyIT is a sad reflection on the state of democracy under this present Government, when a group at 12 unelected petty officials feel that they can, with impunity, get away with total disregard to the clearly expressed opinions of a 72 per cent majority of respondents to a public consultation.
It is an even sadder reflection on the two Southampton MPs that they have not spoken out against this decision. Their silence on this Issue speaks volumes when It comes to representing the democratic wishes of the people of Southampton. This m something I thought they were elected to do, and is something thepeople of Southampton should remember at the next general ejection.I do not care if the local MPs are in favour of fluoridation or not, irrespective of their views on this subject or any other subject for that matter, if democracy has been attacked in the way that the decision on fluoridation attacked it, any MP of any party, purporting to represent the public whose democratic voice has been so blatantly ignored, should be calling for the removal from office of those persons responsible, and for the immediate restitution ofdemocracy by the decision being declared invalid,Any MPs who support the decision of a morally bankrupt group of unelected individuals to declare war on democracy must ask themselves if they are any longer capable of, truly and without bias, representing the views of their constituents, Certainly on the issue of fluoridation it would appear not. it is sad that it has been necessary to put a petition en the 10 Downing Street website asking for democracy to be restored. Please sign up to it at petitions10.gov.uk/democracyHants/ if you support democracy in this country and please tell your friends about it. Our MPs, if they are truly representing us, should be pressuring the Prime Minister to make sure consultations are no longer a blatant sham by unelected, biased, officials.This Issue is no longer about fluoride or the rights or wrongs of it, The issue is far bigger than that now. The issue Is the peoples right to fundamental democracy.If you wish to live in a democratic society then be prepared to stand up for democracy. Nobody else wiil do it for you. It is your right, fight for it.Do not let any Government, of any political party, water down democracy and especially do not let them hand over power to unelected officials.
Otherwise before you know it you may even lose the right to vote for who governs the country.
5 Apr 2009
Evidence shows why we shouldn't fluoridate water
Evidence shows why we shouldn't fluoridate waterGuest Columnist • April 5, 2009
Water fluoridation became personal for me in1993 when I was diagnosed with mouth cancer and my chosen medical professionals advised me to avoid fluorides. At issue were direct toxicity to my oral cavity, interference with my immune system and fluoride being a prime suspect as an "enabler" of the process that leads to cancer. I am not alone in my concerns about the risks involved with water fluoridation.
Hardy Limeback is a practicing dentist as well as associate professor and head of preventive dentistry at the University of Toronto, Ontario. He is world-renowned for his expertise and was Canada's leading fluoride authority and promoter of water fluoridation until 1999 at which time he assembled his dental faculty and students. He recalls, "Speaking as the head of preventive dentistry, I told them that I had unintentionally misled my colleagues and my students. For the past 15 years, I had refused to study the toxicology information that is readily available to anyone. Poisoning our children was the furthest thing from my mind. The truth was a bitter pill to swallow. But swallow it I did."
Swallowing is the issue with fluorides. Any benefits of fluoride occur topically — at the tooth's surface — not systemically as was once thought. Limeback is especially concerned about infants' exposure to fluoride and warns that powdered formula must never be reconstituted with fluoridated water.
Excessive intake of fluoride during tooth development results in dental fluorosis, a condition that the CDC said in 2005 was exhibited by one-third of U.S. children and adolescents aged 6 to 19. Almost 4 percent had moderate to severe fluorosis.
Bill Osmunson, a cosmetic dentist, often treats the white and brown tooth damage caused by fluorides. For 25 years he promoted water fluoridation, but his life was changed when, at the urging of his patients, he re-examined the issue. As he put it, "Looking at the current literature was like a knee in the gut."
Photos taken by Limeback and others can be seen online. The December 2008/January 2009 issue of the Journal of the Canadian Dental Association discusses the difficulty of repairing severely fluorotic teeth.
There is more at stake here than developing teeth. The National Research Council's 2006 report on fluorides stated that diabetics, kidney patients and seniors are "susceptible subpopulations" that are particularly vulnerable to harm from ingested fluorides. And what harm might that be? The Material Safety Data Sheet for a fluoride delivery states: "Intake of 6 mg or more/day may result in brittleness of bones, anemia, weakness, stiffness of joints and progressive changes in teeth and skeleton."
Legal organizations are looking at mechanisms for redress against those who have failed to warn of the harmful effects of consuming fluoridated water.
In January, a formal letter of notice went out to the American Diabetes Association outlining the "upcoming tsunami of public outrage and ensuing lawsuits" toward those who have failed to warn of potential harm from fluoridated water.
Those making untrue and misleading statements in support of water fluoridation are starting to be held accountable.
An important voice came into the debate when Tennessee State Rep. Joey Hensley, M.D., sent a letter to all Tennessee water districts advising them to no longer add fluoride to drinking water.
It's time for us to seriously re-examine why we are adding a toxic waste to Staunton's drinking water and then calling it safe to drink.
4 Apr 2009
Meeting at the Baptist church
There was a constant stream of visitors including councillors and prospective MPs. One or two of the HAF members went on the streets canvassing for signatures and met with a warm reception with people only too willing to sign up. We also got several very generous donations as well as meeting a determined woman who wants to take up the legal challenge as she has thyroid problems and fluorosed teeth from being brought up in the Midlands.
Souhampton's anti-fluoride group looks for support at public meeting
Souhampton's anti-fluoride group looks for support at public meeting
1:06pm Friday 3rd April 2009
ANTI-fluoride campaigners will step up their fight against plans to add the chemical to Southampton’s tap water at a public meeting tomorrow.
Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) members will be talking to residents about their concerns over the scheme, backed in February by regional health chiefs despite widespread opposition from people in the affected area.
Public Meeting
Hampshire Against Fluoridation have organised an open public meeting where there will be an opportunity to sign the petition, find out more about what we are doing since the decision and how you can help. This will take place on Saturday 4th April at:
Central Baptist Church
Devonshire Road
Southampton
Come along at any time between 12 – 6pm.
Legal Fighting Fund
We have launched a Fighting Fund and are seeking donations to help fight the SHA decision. We are currently taking legal advice to challenge this decision. All contributions gratefully accepted!
1:06pm Friday 3rd April 2009
ANTI-fluoride campaigners will step up their fight against plans to add the chemical to Southampton’s tap water at a public meeting tomorrow.
Hampshire Against Fluoridation (HAF) members will be talking to residents about their concerns over the scheme, backed in February by regional health chiefs despite widespread opposition from people in the affected area.
Public Meeting
Hampshire Against Fluoridation have organised an open public meeting where there will be an opportunity to sign the petition, find out more about what we are doing since the decision and how you can help. This will take place on Saturday 4th April at:
Central Baptist Church
Devonshire Road
Southampton
Come along at any time between 12 – 6pm.
Legal Fighting Fund
We have launched a Fighting Fund and are seeking donations to help fight the SHA decision. We are currently taking legal advice to challenge this decision. All contributions gratefully accepted!
3 Apr 2009
2 Apr 2009
1 Apr 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
