30 Nov 2011
USA - Wooster Water Warfare
Gives both sides even has a waterwork's manager speaking about fluoridation.
5 Ways to Beat Gum Disease
5 Ways to Beat Gum Disease
By Joanna Karpasea-Jones HERWriter November 29, 2011 - 5:15am
Official dental opinion states that once your gums start receding, they cannot recover and all that can be done is scale and polishing to prevent any further gum loss. However, some dental professionals are now realizing that gum tissue can regenerate and with the right recovery program it is possible to reverse gum disease.
1. First, look at your diet. Stay away from sugar and too many carbohydrates and eat high protein healthy foods. Snack on seeds as these contain minerals that may contribute to healthier gum tissue.
Swap your morning coffee for a cup of green tea. Research in the Journal of Periodontology found that for every cup of green tea drunk, patients had less gum bleeding, less clinical attachment loss and shallower periodontal pocket depth. The more green tea they drank, the lower the incidence in periodontal disease.
This is probably because of catechin, a substance in green tea that is antioxidant and reduces inflammation. Take a multivitamin supplement, particularly if you aren’t sure that your diet contains everything you need or you have a busy lifestyle.
2. Check your toothpaste. It may be making the situation worse. Don’t have one that contains chemical whiteners or artificial coloring as these may irritate gum tissue. Sodium lauryl sulfate can also irritate and actually serves no purpose for your teeth and gums. It isn’t needed for their health. Saccharine or sugar is counter-productive and can hasten tooth decay.
Fluoride has been reported to protect against dental decay and gum disease, however, research carried out in 2007 found that in high-fluoride areas, there was a strong occurrence of periodontal disease. There is also a condition called fluorosis caused by having too much fluoride that can chip away at your enamel and result in cracked and weakened teeth.
Opt for natural toothpastes that state ‘100% natural ingredients’ on the packaging. Rosemary toothpastes may improve gum cell regeneration.
Other examples of toothpastes are echinacea (good for wound healing), baking soda, bee propolis (a natural antibiotic that may help tackle bacteria in the mouth) and calendula. If you want to use a tea tree toothpaste, only do so sparingly in conjunction with a regular toothpaste as too much tea tree can irritate the gums.
3. Use a mouthwash to combat bacteria. Both commercial and herbal brands are available but the commercial brands contain dye and other artificial products that may be too harsh on delicate gum tissue. Mouthwash can be put on a toothbrush or cotton bud and dabbed onto the affected area.
4. Use an oral irrigator. This uses jets of water to clean out areas of your mouth that you may not reach with a toothbrush. You can add mouthwash, baking soda or salt to your irrigator to get a really good clean.
5. Use a gum massager. Battery-operated gum massagers are available from shops and online stores. By massaging the gums daily, you can increase blood flow to them which will increase their oxygen supply and may reverse gum disease.
Go to article to see references
By Joanna Karpasea-Jones HERWriter November 29, 2011 - 5:15am
Official dental opinion states that once your gums start receding, they cannot recover and all that can be done is scale and polishing to prevent any further gum loss. However, some dental professionals are now realizing that gum tissue can regenerate and with the right recovery program it is possible to reverse gum disease.
1. First, look at your diet. Stay away from sugar and too many carbohydrates and eat high protein healthy foods. Snack on seeds as these contain minerals that may contribute to healthier gum tissue.
Swap your morning coffee for a cup of green tea. Research in the Journal of Periodontology found that for every cup of green tea drunk, patients had less gum bleeding, less clinical attachment loss and shallower periodontal pocket depth. The more green tea they drank, the lower the incidence in periodontal disease.
This is probably because of catechin, a substance in green tea that is antioxidant and reduces inflammation. Take a multivitamin supplement, particularly if you aren’t sure that your diet contains everything you need or you have a busy lifestyle.
2. Check your toothpaste. It may be making the situation worse. Don’t have one that contains chemical whiteners or artificial coloring as these may irritate gum tissue. Sodium lauryl sulfate can also irritate and actually serves no purpose for your teeth and gums. It isn’t needed for their health. Saccharine or sugar is counter-productive and can hasten tooth decay.
Fluoride has been reported to protect against dental decay and gum disease, however, research carried out in 2007 found that in high-fluoride areas, there was a strong occurrence of periodontal disease. There is also a condition called fluorosis caused by having too much fluoride that can chip away at your enamel and result in cracked and weakened teeth.
Opt for natural toothpastes that state ‘100% natural ingredients’ on the packaging. Rosemary toothpastes may improve gum cell regeneration.
Other examples of toothpastes are echinacea (good for wound healing), baking soda, bee propolis (a natural antibiotic that may help tackle bacteria in the mouth) and calendula. If you want to use a tea tree toothpaste, only do so sparingly in conjunction with a regular toothpaste as too much tea tree can irritate the gums.
3. Use a mouthwash to combat bacteria. Both commercial and herbal brands are available but the commercial brands contain dye and other artificial products that may be too harsh on delicate gum tissue. Mouthwash can be put on a toothbrush or cotton bud and dabbed onto the affected area.
4. Use an oral irrigator. This uses jets of water to clean out areas of your mouth that you may not reach with a toothbrush. You can add mouthwash, baking soda or salt to your irrigator to get a really good clean.
5. Use a gum massager. Battery-operated gum massagers are available from shops and online stores. By massaging the gums daily, you can increase blood flow to them which will increase their oxygen supply and may reverse gum disease.
Go to article to see references
29 Nov 2011
Ditch sweets at checkouts, shops to be told
Ditch sweets at checkouts, shops to be told
28th Nov 2011
Water fluoridisation will be considered and supermarkets will be asked to remove sweets from checkout in an effort to improve the oral health among children in a London borough.
A report by Hammersmith and Fulham earlier this year found half the borough's under-fives are suffering from tooth decay due to poor oral health, way above the London average of 33%.
Child dental admissions to Chelsea and Westminster Hospital cost the NHS more than £350,000 last year, prompting health chiefs to set up a task group, which this week presented its findings to Hammersmith and Fulham Council.
The authority has agreed to set aside a budget of £89,000 to spread awareness of a problem which is linked to deprivation, while it has also pledged to look into the prospect of water fluoridisation, which has been found to significantly reduce decay.
The issue will be debated at a full council meeting where it could be decided to hold a future public consultation over whether the borough should join areas such as Birmingham in adding fluoride to the water system, where decay has been reduced by up to 40%.
It also agreed to ask shops and leisure centres to 'chuck sweets off the checkout' as part of a separate campaign to improve children's diets, while schools will be forced to conduct dental inspections, improve oral health signposting and focus further on healthy eating as part of a number of new directives.
Advertisement Inner North West London NHS Primary Care Trust will introduce a number of initiatives, including a targeted fluoride varnishing campaign for three-five-year-olds, the distribution of toothbrushes and toothpaste to targeted groups and special support for children in care.
28th Nov 2011
Water fluoridisation will be considered and supermarkets will be asked to remove sweets from checkout in an effort to improve the oral health among children in a London borough.
A report by Hammersmith and Fulham earlier this year found half the borough's under-fives are suffering from tooth decay due to poor oral health, way above the London average of 33%.
Child dental admissions to Chelsea and Westminster Hospital cost the NHS more than £350,000 last year, prompting health chiefs to set up a task group, which this week presented its findings to Hammersmith and Fulham Council.
The authority has agreed to set aside a budget of £89,000 to spread awareness of a problem which is linked to deprivation, while it has also pledged to look into the prospect of water fluoridisation, which has been found to significantly reduce decay.
The issue will be debated at a full council meeting where it could be decided to hold a future public consultation over whether the borough should join areas such as Birmingham in adding fluoride to the water system, where decay has been reduced by up to 40%.
It also agreed to ask shops and leisure centres to 'chuck sweets off the checkout' as part of a separate campaign to improve children's diets, while schools will be forced to conduct dental inspections, improve oral health signposting and focus further on healthy eating as part of a number of new directives.
Advertisement Inner North West London NHS Primary Care Trust will introduce a number of initiatives, including a targeted fluoride varnishing campaign for three-five-year-olds, the distribution of toothbrushes and toothpaste to targeted groups and special support for children in care.
27 Nov 2011
FIRE WATER_ fluoride poison in the tap water Official Full-Length Documentary.mp4
Australian video worth putting on again for those who haven't seen it.
Canada - Fluoride critics vow to keep fighting
Fluoride critics vow to keep fighting
By John Miner, The London Free Press
London city councillors are being advised to brush off fluoride opponents in the future, a suggestion that infuriates activists who want the chemical banned from the city’s water supply.
“It is absolutely asinine,” said Chris Gupta, an engineer and member of People for Safe Drinking Water, a group lobbying against fluoride.
In a recommendation to the Built and Natural Environment Committee, city staff said they have confidence in the integrity of the Middlesex-London Health Unit, the chief medical officer of health for Ontario and Health Canada.
All three have backed the continued use of fluoride in London’s water to prevent tooth decay.
“Research into the health effects of water fluoridation has been ongoing for over 70 years and the world’s foremost dental and medical organizations support and promote the practice,” the city hall staff report said.
The report, submitted by John Simon, division manager of London’s water operations, concluded fluoridation has no adverse affect on water quality and achieves positive outcomes.
London has been adding fluoride to the water system since 1967 after Londoners voted for it in a plebiscite. The annual cost of adding fluoride is about $133,000 a year, or 38 cents for each London resident.
The Middlesex London Health Unit has pegged the savings in dental treatment costs at $38 for every dollar spent on water fluoridation.
Noting that city council periodically hears from people opposed to fluoridation, the staff report said opponents are essentially asking council to arrive at a different conclusion than Health Canada experts after evaluating only a select fraction of material.
“Administration advises that when presented with correspondence requesting the cessation of water fluoridation, council should support the ongoing fluoridation of the City of London’s water supply, deferring to the findings of the Health Canada review and to the recommendation of the chief medical officer of Health for Ontario and the board of health for the Middlesex-London Health Unit,” the report recommended.
Gupta said city council shouldn’t deflect the issue to others.
“Who is the idiot that is doing it - the city. Who is going to be liable for damages - the city. They are the ones holding the bag,” he said.
Gupta maintains there has been no evidence to show that fluoridation is safe for the human body.
“They keep saying it is good for your teeth, good for your teeth, safe and effective, safe and effective. Fine, show us the safety studies,” he said.
A meeting in March, sponsored by the People for Safe Drinking Water, drew more than 400 people to hear fluoride critic Dr. Paul Connett.
Gupta said only two city councillors attended.
“Their minds are made up. They say ‘don’t confuse us with the facts.’”
Gupta said the People for Safe Drinking Water has no choice but to continue the fight against fluoride.
“This stuff is dangerous to children’s brains. We have to keep pressing this.”
john.miner@sunmedia.ca
Same stance as the SHA and the NHS - we know best. After that farce of a consultation we will never believe that again.
By John Miner, The London Free Press
London city councillors are being advised to brush off fluoride opponents in the future, a suggestion that infuriates activists who want the chemical banned from the city’s water supply.
“It is absolutely asinine,” said Chris Gupta, an engineer and member of People for Safe Drinking Water, a group lobbying against fluoride.
In a recommendation to the Built and Natural Environment Committee, city staff said they have confidence in the integrity of the Middlesex-London Health Unit, the chief medical officer of health for Ontario and Health Canada.
All three have backed the continued use of fluoride in London’s water to prevent tooth decay.
“Research into the health effects of water fluoridation has been ongoing for over 70 years and the world’s foremost dental and medical organizations support and promote the practice,” the city hall staff report said.
The report, submitted by John Simon, division manager of London’s water operations, concluded fluoridation has no adverse affect on water quality and achieves positive outcomes.
London has been adding fluoride to the water system since 1967 after Londoners voted for it in a plebiscite. The annual cost of adding fluoride is about $133,000 a year, or 38 cents for each London resident.
The Middlesex London Health Unit has pegged the savings in dental treatment costs at $38 for every dollar spent on water fluoridation.
Noting that city council periodically hears from people opposed to fluoridation, the staff report said opponents are essentially asking council to arrive at a different conclusion than Health Canada experts after evaluating only a select fraction of material.
“Administration advises that when presented with correspondence requesting the cessation of water fluoridation, council should support the ongoing fluoridation of the City of London’s water supply, deferring to the findings of the Health Canada review and to the recommendation of the chief medical officer of Health for Ontario and the board of health for the Middlesex-London Health Unit,” the report recommended.
Gupta said city council shouldn’t deflect the issue to others.
“Who is the idiot that is doing it - the city. Who is going to be liable for damages - the city. They are the ones holding the bag,” he said.
Gupta maintains there has been no evidence to show that fluoridation is safe for the human body.
“They keep saying it is good for your teeth, good for your teeth, safe and effective, safe and effective. Fine, show us the safety studies,” he said.
A meeting in March, sponsored by the People for Safe Drinking Water, drew more than 400 people to hear fluoride critic Dr. Paul Connett.
Gupta said only two city councillors attended.
“Their minds are made up. They say ‘don’t confuse us with the facts.’”
Gupta said the People for Safe Drinking Water has no choice but to continue the fight against fluoride.
“This stuff is dangerous to children’s brains. We have to keep pressing this.”
john.miner@sunmedia.ca
Same stance as the SHA and the NHS - we know best. After that farce of a consultation we will never believe that again.
25 Nov 2011
Portsmouth - Youngsters shown how to look after their pearly whites
Youngsters shown how to look after their pearly whites
Published on Friday 25 November 2011 08:03
Reception children from Somers Park Primary School have been learning how to clean their teeth and the importance of oral hygiene.
Staff from the University of Portsmouth’s Dental Academy demonstrated how to brush teeth to get them as clean as possible.
The school in Somers Road, Somers Town, has joined 14 others in the city that have signed up to the scheme.
Portsmouth has some of the worst oral health in the country.
Children in the city have some of the highest number of decayed and missing teeth.
Around 44 per cent of children aged five or under have tooth decay in the city – compared to just 25 per cent in the north of the county.
Headteacher Jan Fleming said: ‘Tooth decay in the under-fives is the worst in Portsmouth in this ward, so it’s important children clearly understand how to care for their teeth.
‘This scheme, while time consuming, ensures children understand good dental hygiene.’
Children were shown how to brush their teeth, how long for, and why it’s important to keep the mouth clean.
They were also given free toothbrushes and toothpaste, and will brush their teeth every day at school.
Dental tutor Alison Press said: ‘Teaching children now sets them up for the future.
‘The programme comes from Scotland, as there were high levels of tooth decay there.
‘The scheme was a massive success, so we have introduced it in Portsmouth.
‘Children are learning to brush their teeth twice a day for two minutes and how it can stop tooth decay.
‘It also means they can teach the next generation how to clean teeth properly and encourage having a healthy diet.’
NHS Portsmouth and NHS Hampshire fund the scheme.
Why can't they do the same in Southampton?
Published on Friday 25 November 2011 08:03
Reception children from Somers Park Primary School have been learning how to clean their teeth and the importance of oral hygiene.
Staff from the University of Portsmouth’s Dental Academy demonstrated how to brush teeth to get them as clean as possible.
The school in Somers Road, Somers Town, has joined 14 others in the city that have signed up to the scheme.
Portsmouth has some of the worst oral health in the country.
Children in the city have some of the highest number of decayed and missing teeth.
Around 44 per cent of children aged five or under have tooth decay in the city – compared to just 25 per cent in the north of the county.
Headteacher Jan Fleming said: ‘Tooth decay in the under-fives is the worst in Portsmouth in this ward, so it’s important children clearly understand how to care for their teeth.
‘This scheme, while time consuming, ensures children understand good dental hygiene.’
Children were shown how to brush their teeth, how long for, and why it’s important to keep the mouth clean.
They were also given free toothbrushes and toothpaste, and will brush their teeth every day at school.
Dental tutor Alison Press said: ‘Teaching children now sets them up for the future.
‘The programme comes from Scotland, as there were high levels of tooth decay there.
‘The scheme was a massive success, so we have introduced it in Portsmouth.
‘Children are learning to brush their teeth twice a day for two minutes and how it can stop tooth decay.
‘It also means they can teach the next generation how to clean teeth properly and encourage having a healthy diet.’
NHS Portsmouth and NHS Hampshire fund the scheme.
Why can't they do the same in Southampton?
Daily Echo - Deliberate water 'contamination'
Deliberate water 'contamination'I EXPECT many have come to the same conclusion as M Darnell (Letters, November 17) that fluoridation is a done deal between the Government and industry. One of the most frightening aspects of the whole business is the absence of any organisation within Parliament, the health service or the water industry, prepared to stand up for our right to uncontaminated water.
I asked the Drinking Water Inspectorate whether it is true that the chemicals used in fluoridation are derived from industrial waste difficult to dispose of. Initially they replied that they did not know the source, but when I expressed surprise admitted that they did know, but without giving details. They certainly did not deny the link with industrial waste and indicated that the possibility existed, even if slight, of the supplies including minute traces of other noxious chemicals, including arsenic, lead, mercury and cadmium, though with the assurance that such things if present would be at far too low a concentration to be a danger. If I understood the explanation given, it seems that the Government's view is that if the public cannot readily detect the impurities then it is alright.
No doubt the human body can tolerate a variety of naturally-occurring contaminants. Their deliberate addition to our water is, however, another matter and is totally unacceptable. G PAYNE, Woolston, Southampton.
According to the Chief Medical Officer 2% of the tonnes used in fluoridation is impurities.
The UK's Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985, since incorporated into the 1991 Water Industry Act, allows hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and disodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) to be used to increase the fluoride content of water. The published Code of Practice on Technical Aspects of Fluoridation of Water Supplies (Department of the Environment, 1987) gives specifications for these substances and states that 'the product. ..must not contain any mineral or organic substances capable of impairing the health of those drinking water correctly treated with the product'. For H2SiF6, limits are given for a number of possible impurities, including for iron, heavy metals, sulphate, phosphate, and chloride. The specification for Na2SiF6 powder requires a minimum of 98% m/m of the pure chemical, and gives maximum limits for impurities, including heavy metals (as lead) and iron. No other substances are allowed to be used in the fluoridation process, other than an anti-caking agent (the identity of which must be disclosed) in the case of Na2SiF6. Synthetic detergents are not permitted.
Thus there is no likelihood, in normal operation, for any fluoridation plants to introduce other compounds into the drinking water supply (other than approved anti-cakinq aqents and any impurities present in the fluoridation chemicals).
24 Nov 2011
Figures Reveal Children in Leicester have Worst Teeth in the UK
Recent figures have revealed that children in Leicester have the worst teeth in the UK.
The findings, published by the Dental Observatory and the North West Public Health Observatory, show that the average five-year-old child living in Leicester has at least two rotten or filled teeth, which is significantly higher than the national average of just over one tooth per child.
Local dentist, Philip Martin, said he had seen a child aged just six who had to have all their teeth removed as a result of extensive decay and added that he sees children with serious dental problems almost on a daily basis.
Mr Martin is the vice-chairman of the committee that represents dentists in Rutland and Leicestershire. Members are extremely worried about the high rates of decay among children, especially as poor oral hygiene habits tend to progress into adulthood and dental problems are associated with a higher risk of serious conditions, including diabetes and heart disease. The committee is now campaigning for a specialist in public health to be appointed, as the role is currently empty after being downgraded by the Primary Care Trust over the last three years.
Mr Martin has shared the concerns of the committee with NHS Leicester and NHS Leicestershire County and Rutland and he also spoken to the county council’s health overview and scrutiny committee.
A statement from the Primary Care Trusts said that it was not cost-effective to employ a public health consultant due to budget cuts in public health spending. However the trusts recognise that rates of decay are alarmingly high and are working to encourage parents to take their children for regular dental check-ups and have invested more than £2 million in dental services in the last two years.
The findings, published by the Dental Observatory and the North West Public Health Observatory, show that the average five-year-old child living in Leicester has at least two rotten or filled teeth, which is significantly higher than the national average of just over one tooth per child.
Local dentist, Philip Martin, said he had seen a child aged just six who had to have all their teeth removed as a result of extensive decay and added that he sees children with serious dental problems almost on a daily basis.
Mr Martin is the vice-chairman of the committee that represents dentists in Rutland and Leicestershire. Members are extremely worried about the high rates of decay among children, especially as poor oral hygiene habits tend to progress into adulthood and dental problems are associated with a higher risk of serious conditions, including diabetes and heart disease. The committee is now campaigning for a specialist in public health to be appointed, as the role is currently empty after being downgraded by the Primary Care Trust over the last three years.
Mr Martin has shared the concerns of the committee with NHS Leicester and NHS Leicestershire County and Rutland and he also spoken to the county council’s health overview and scrutiny committee.
A statement from the Primary Care Trusts said that it was not cost-effective to employ a public health consultant due to budget cuts in public health spending. However the trusts recognise that rates of decay are alarmingly high and are working to encourage parents to take their children for regular dental check-ups and have invested more than £2 million in dental services in the last two years.
23 Nov 2011
USA - Added to our drinking water: a chemical 'more toxic than lead?' .
by Joe Conger / KENS 5
Posted on November 22, 2011 at 10:05 PM
Through the lips and past the gums, and into the stomach in seconds.
It’s a drink of water, plus a little hydrofluorosilicic acid: a chemical so corrosive and toxic, it carries a warning label. Since 2002, the city has been injecting it into the water supply, in an effort to stem tooth decay.
“The one, clear, proven way of keeping people’s teeth healthier, reducing decay is community water fluoridation,” said Dr. Maria Lopez-Howell, a San Antonio dentist and spokeswoman for the American Dental Association.
The American Dental Association says studies dating back to the 1940’s show a correlation between high concentrations of fluoride and a lack of cavities.
“We know that it continues to work, with anywhere from a 20 to 40 percent reduction in tooth decay,” added Lopez-Howell.
The ADA’s stance on fluoridated water hasn’t changed. But what has changed in the last 9 years is the growth of research which says ingesting fluoride may be harming, rather than helping.
"It accumulates in your bones and other places as well,” said Dr. Griffin Cole, an Austin dentist and opponent of fluoridated water.
Cole won’t use fluoride in his dental office.
"No fluoride. I don't have any fluoridated toothpaste in the office. I don't do any fluoride treatments, never have. I don't recommend it. I openly tell my patients that,” said Cole.
Cole says despite the lack of fluoride, there’s been no increase in cavities in his patients.
"Drinking water with fluoride in it does not have any benefit to the teeth, whatsoever,” he said.
And San Antonio’s Metro-Health department studies appear to back that up.
After 9 years and $3 million of adding fluoride, research shows tooth decay hasn’t dropped among the poorest of Bexar County’s children it has only increased—up 13 percent this year.
One out of two children in the Head Start program who were checked for cavities had some last year.
Also on the increase is fluorosis—or staining of the teeth. Drink a lot of fluoridated water, and you run the risk of these permanent splotches.
In fact, fluorosis is up 41 percent across the nation.
It’s so prevalent, the Centers for Disease Control warns parents NOT to mix baby formula with fluoridated water—a warning that is at-odds with the ADA.
“Our diet is such that we need everything we can do to prevent tooth decay. The bad news is that you may have some white spots on your teeth. The good news is that you won’t have any cavities,” said Dr. Lopez-Howell.
But recent studies from the CDC report there’s no clear evidence that adding fluoride to water does anything. And even one of the ADA’s own researchers has concluded that fluoride--at best—works when it is applied topically to teeth.
In 2006, the National Academy of Science reported that even at low levels, ingesting fluoride increases bone fractures and contributes to diabetes, brittle bones and thyroid dysfunction.
Dr. Laura Pressley says she learned that the hard way.
"About ten years ago I was diagnosed with hypothyroidism,” said Pressley.
With the diagnosis, she began taking a regimen of drugs to control it.
Thyroid disease isn’t something that runs in her family, so Pressley investigated.
"I do have fluorosis in my teeth, and the white discoloration and I knew I grew up with fluoride in my tap water as a child,” she said.
As a chemist, Pressley says her research pointed to fluoride. So, she took it out. All of it--through water filters and a change in diet.
And she says when fluoride disappeared, so did her symptoms.
"I was on migraine medication, I was on allergy medication, and I was on thyroid medication. I take no medications at all. And that is shocking, because I was on so much three years ago,” said Pressley.
“This compound that the city is adding is many more times toxic than lead. It’s nearly as toxic as arsenic,” said a fluoride opponent, who signed up to speak at a City of Austin committee hearing.
The city is considering a warning label on its water bill, so that residents know the hazards associated with fluoride consumption.
It’s a first step, they say, in joining the 250 communities that have stopped fluoridation completely.
“Let’s get the warning on our label on our city bill, and let’s just get it out of the water. It’s time,” added Cole.
Posted on November 22, 2011 at 10:05 PM
Through the lips and past the gums, and into the stomach in seconds.
It’s a drink of water, plus a little hydrofluorosilicic acid: a chemical so corrosive and toxic, it carries a warning label. Since 2002, the city has been injecting it into the water supply, in an effort to stem tooth decay.
“The one, clear, proven way of keeping people’s teeth healthier, reducing decay is community water fluoridation,” said Dr. Maria Lopez-Howell, a San Antonio dentist and spokeswoman for the American Dental Association.
The American Dental Association says studies dating back to the 1940’s show a correlation between high concentrations of fluoride and a lack of cavities.
“We know that it continues to work, with anywhere from a 20 to 40 percent reduction in tooth decay,” added Lopez-Howell.
The ADA’s stance on fluoridated water hasn’t changed. But what has changed in the last 9 years is the growth of research which says ingesting fluoride may be harming, rather than helping.
"It accumulates in your bones and other places as well,” said Dr. Griffin Cole, an Austin dentist and opponent of fluoridated water.
Cole won’t use fluoride in his dental office.
"No fluoride. I don't have any fluoridated toothpaste in the office. I don't do any fluoride treatments, never have. I don't recommend it. I openly tell my patients that,” said Cole.
Cole says despite the lack of fluoride, there’s been no increase in cavities in his patients.
"Drinking water with fluoride in it does not have any benefit to the teeth, whatsoever,” he said.
And San Antonio’s Metro-Health department studies appear to back that up.
After 9 years and $3 million of adding fluoride, research shows tooth decay hasn’t dropped among the poorest of Bexar County’s children it has only increased—up 13 percent this year.
One out of two children in the Head Start program who were checked for cavities had some last year.
Also on the increase is fluorosis—or staining of the teeth. Drink a lot of fluoridated water, and you run the risk of these permanent splotches.
In fact, fluorosis is up 41 percent across the nation.
It’s so prevalent, the Centers for Disease Control warns parents NOT to mix baby formula with fluoridated water—a warning that is at-odds with the ADA.
“Our diet is such that we need everything we can do to prevent tooth decay. The bad news is that you may have some white spots on your teeth. The good news is that you won’t have any cavities,” said Dr. Lopez-Howell.
But recent studies from the CDC report there’s no clear evidence that adding fluoride to water does anything. And even one of the ADA’s own researchers has concluded that fluoride--at best—works when it is applied topically to teeth.
In 2006, the National Academy of Science reported that even at low levels, ingesting fluoride increases bone fractures and contributes to diabetes, brittle bones and thyroid dysfunction.
Dr. Laura Pressley says she learned that the hard way.
"About ten years ago I was diagnosed with hypothyroidism,” said Pressley.
With the diagnosis, she began taking a regimen of drugs to control it.
Thyroid disease isn’t something that runs in her family, so Pressley investigated.
"I do have fluorosis in my teeth, and the white discoloration and I knew I grew up with fluoride in my tap water as a child,” she said.
As a chemist, Pressley says her research pointed to fluoride. So, she took it out. All of it--through water filters and a change in diet.
And she says when fluoride disappeared, so did her symptoms.
"I was on migraine medication, I was on allergy medication, and I was on thyroid medication. I take no medications at all. And that is shocking, because I was on so much three years ago,” said Pressley.
“This compound that the city is adding is many more times toxic than lead. It’s nearly as toxic as arsenic,” said a fluoride opponent, who signed up to speak at a City of Austin committee hearing.
The city is considering a warning label on its water bill, so that residents know the hazards associated with fluoride consumption.
It’s a first step, they say, in joining the 250 communities that have stopped fluoridation completely.
“Let’s get the warning on our label on our city bill, and let’s just get it out of the water. It’s time,” added Cole.
22 Nov 2011
Scotland - Programme to prevent tooth decay
FOUR new Childsmile vans will drive to nurseries and primary schools across the Greater Glasgow and Clyde area, including Alexandria and Dumbarton.
Specially trained Dental Nurses will then apply a special fluoride varnish to children's teeth as part of the ongoing national campaign to prevent tooth decay from an early age.
The vans are part of the National Childsmile Nursery and Schools Oral Health Improvement Programme and are an exciting development to bring dental preventative services directly to nurseries and schools....
Parents will be asked to complete consent forms allowing their children to take part in the programme and it is hoped that this, along with all the other Childsmile programmes available, will help reduce the number of children showing signs of early tooth decay.
Ray McAndrew, associate medical director (Dental), said: "Tooth decay is a widespread condition in the West of Scotland and a particular problem in the Greater Glasgow and Clyde area.
"The Childsmile programme uses fluoride varnish to help reduce tooth decay in children. Fluoride varnish is a golden gel which is applied to children's teeth using a soft brush. The varnish sets quickly and has a pleasant taste and a fruity smell."
It's a poison won't that encourage kids to swallow it?
Specially trained Dental Nurses will then apply a special fluoride varnish to children's teeth as part of the ongoing national campaign to prevent tooth decay from an early age.
The vans are part of the National Childsmile Nursery and Schools Oral Health Improvement Programme and are an exciting development to bring dental preventative services directly to nurseries and schools....
Parents will be asked to complete consent forms allowing their children to take part in the programme and it is hoped that this, along with all the other Childsmile programmes available, will help reduce the number of children showing signs of early tooth decay.
Ray McAndrew, associate medical director (Dental), said: "Tooth decay is a widespread condition in the West of Scotland and a particular problem in the Greater Glasgow and Clyde area.
"The Childsmile programme uses fluoride varnish to help reduce tooth decay in children. Fluoride varnish is a golden gel which is applied to children's teeth using a soft brush. The varnish sets quickly and has a pleasant taste and a fruity smell."
It's a poison won't that encourage kids to swallow it?
21 Nov 2011
Hackers 'hit' US water treatment systems
Hackers are alleged to have destroyed a pump used to pipe water to thousands of homes in a US city in Illinois.
Hackers with access to the utility's network are thought to have broken the pump by turning it on and off quickly.
The FBI and Department for Homeland Security (DHS) are investigating the incident as details emerge of what could be a separate second attack.....
Hackers with access to the utility's network are thought to have broken the pump by turning it on and off quickly.
The FBI and Department for Homeland Security (DHS) are investigating the incident as details emerge of what could be a separate second attack.....
USA - Make dental disease prevention a priority
Make dental disease prevention a priority
By Dr. Hani Eid Posted: Sunday, November 20, 2011
Dental disease can be intensely painful, costly and lead to other serious health problems. There is also a cost to society in terms of higher health care expenses, reduced productivity, missed school and missed opportunities. Dental disease is also preventable.
In 2009 Medicaid spent more than $55 million treating children's dental decay in Washington. Much of this money could be saved if prevention and early treatment are priorities. Yet, when budgets are stretched thin, prevention is too often on the chopping block.
Children's oral health has long been a problem in Cowlitz and Wahkiakum counties and the state of Washington in general. Historically, the rates of dental decay among children in our state have been higher than in other states...........
Fluoridated?
By Dr. Hani Eid Posted: Sunday, November 20, 2011
Dental disease can be intensely painful, costly and lead to other serious health problems. There is also a cost to society in terms of higher health care expenses, reduced productivity, missed school and missed opportunities. Dental disease is also preventable.
In 2009 Medicaid spent more than $55 million treating children's dental decay in Washington. Much of this money could be saved if prevention and early treatment are priorities. Yet, when budgets are stretched thin, prevention is too often on the chopping block.
Children's oral health has long been a problem in Cowlitz and Wahkiakum counties and the state of Washington in general. Historically, the rates of dental decay among children in our state have been higher than in other states...........
Fluoridated?
20 Nov 2011
No more cavities — UCLA creates bacteria-eliminating mouthwash
No more cavities — UCLA creates bacteria-eliminating mouthwash
By City News Service, on November 19, 2011, at 9:28 am
A UCLA microbiologist has concocted a mouthwash that appears to completely kill the bacteria in human mouths that cause dental cavities, the school has reported.
The school says the mouthwash is like a targeted smart bomb against cavities, and could eliminate tooth decay from human beings “within our lifetime.”
A small-scale test on a dozen people found that the mouthwash rinsed with the UCLA-developed mouthwash just once, and experienced a near-complete elimination of the “s. mutans” bacteria over a four-day testing period.
That particular strain of bacteria is one of millions that coexist in a human body, but is believed exclusively responsible for tooth decay. Americans spend more than $70 billion per year on dental services, the majority involving cavities caused by that particular bacteria......
By City News Service, on November 19, 2011, at 9:28 am
A UCLA microbiologist has concocted a mouthwash that appears to completely kill the bacteria in human mouths that cause dental cavities, the school has reported.
The school says the mouthwash is like a targeted smart bomb against cavities, and could eliminate tooth decay from human beings “within our lifetime.”
A small-scale test on a dozen people found that the mouthwash rinsed with the UCLA-developed mouthwash just once, and experienced a near-complete elimination of the “s. mutans” bacteria over a four-day testing period.
That particular strain of bacteria is one of millions that coexist in a human body, but is believed exclusively responsible for tooth decay. Americans spend more than $70 billion per year on dental services, the majority involving cavities caused by that particular bacteria......
19 Nov 2011
Should there be fluoride in Mid-Missouri's water?
The dentist can't see any problem with people's health? Obesity - fluoride affects thyroid - dumbing down of IQ - according to FAN it does reduce intelligence.
More and more people are getting cancer and arthritis and there is little difference between rates of decay between fluoridated and non fluoridated communities. There is also the damaging fluorosis to teeth where people are getting far too much fluoride.
Daily Echo - Scrap fluoride plans
'Scrap fluoride plans'SINCE writing about not getting an answer to my fluoride questions from Professor John Newton I finally received a reply after my letter was published in the Daily Echo - did that prompt him?
One of my questions was "How will you be able to control how much people drink without getting overdosed?" He answered "When fluoride is added to the water supply it is done so under carefully controlled conditions. Safety is a primary concern and the Government's Code of Practice on Technical Aspects of Fluoridation of Water Supplies 1987 sets out strict criteria for water fluoridation."
Has Mr Newton not heard that not long ago Australia had a big problem with fluoride overdosing and it affected many people? They used modern equipment and it still went wrong.
We don't want so-called sophisticated equipment as we don't want any risk of anything going wrong and we simply don't want fluoride anyway.
We don't want these added risks, we want them to leave our drinking water alone. We have natural fluoride in our water so leave this rubbish out. It is not good for children's teeth and it will cause many more problems to our health.
The idea should be scrapped now.
MRS KINCHINGTON, address supplied.
17 Nov 2011
Daily Echo - Indications fluoride is a done deal
Indications fluoride is a done dealI TOTALLY concur with Mrs Kinchington's recent letter regarding The Great Fluoride Debate, except, of course, it is not a debate in so far as one side is speaking but the other is not listening and has, I believe, no intention whatsoever of doing so. In previous letters to the Echo I expressed the view that fluoride in our water is a done deal between government and industry, which cannot readily dispose of its waste. I believe the majority of the public have seen through the supposed beneficial effects of this obnoxious product on children's teeth and the SHA have, with unbelievable arrogance, decided they will proceed to contaminate our water supply despite overwhelming opposition. I thought there was a glimmer of hope when the local council decided against fluoridation and the SHA was to be abolished in 2012. How strange then that the Government decided to extend its life by a year and thus reuiforce my view that the scheme is Government backed. Like many, many people I speak to about this issue I am extremely worried, annoyed and angry that in This England we are to be denied a most basic right, unpolluted water.
If you think we are living in a democracy think again and when someone enquires: "Shall I put the kettle on?" - a normally lovely thing to hear, like me you'll be thinking twice!
PS: Am I right in thinking a similar scheme in the North West was abandoned quite recently so why not here? M DARNELL, Southampton
16 Nov 2011
New mouthwash targeting harmful bacteria may render tooth decay a thing of the past
15/11/2011 15:40:00By Thomas Mitchell - A new mouthwash developed by a microbiologist at the UCLA School of Dentistry is highly successful in targeting the harmful Streptococcus mutans bacteria that is the principal cause tooth decay and cavities.
In a recent clinical study, 12 subjects who rinsed just one time with the experimental mouthwash experienced a nearly complete elimination of the S. mutans bacteria over the entire four-day testing period. The findings from the small-scale study are published in the current edition of the international dental journal Dental caries, commonly known as tooth decay or cavities, is one of the most common and costly infectious diseases in the United States, affecting more than 50 percent of children and the vast majority of adults aged 18 and older. Americans spend more than $70 billion each year on dental services, with the majority of that amount going toward the treatment of dental caries.
This new mouthwash is the product of nearly a decade of research conducted by Wenyuan Shi, chair of the oral biology section at the UCLA School of Dentistry. Shi developed a new antimicrobial technology called STAMP (specifically targeted anti-microbial peptides) with support from Colgate-Palmolive and from C3-Jian Inc., a company he founded around patent rights he developed at UCLA; the patents were exclusively licensed by UCLA to C3-Jian. The mouthwash uses a STAMP known as C16G2.
The human body is home to millions of different bacteria, some of which cause diseases such as dental caries but many of which are vital for optimum health. Most common broad-spectrum antibiotics, like conventional mouthwash, indiscriminately kill both benign and harmful pathogenic organisms and only do so for a 12-hour time period.
The overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics can seriously disrupt the body's normal ecological balance, rendering humans more susceptible to bacterial, yeast and parasitic infections.
Shi's Sm STAMP C16G2 investigational drug, tested in the clinical study, acts as a sort of "smart bomb," eliminating only the harmful bacteria and remaining effective for an extended period.
Based on the success of this limited clinical trial, C3-Jian Inc. has filed a New Investigational Drug application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is expected to begin more extensive clinical trials in March 2012. If the FDA ultimately approves Sm STAMP C16G2 for general use, it will be the first such anti–dental caries drug since fluoride was licensed nearly 60 years ago......
.
15 Nov 2011
h dental group wants warning labels on soda
Irish dental group wants warning labels on soda
By DrBicuspid Staff
November 14, 2011 -- The Irish Dental Association (IDA) is calling on health officials to require public health warning labels on carbonated soft drinks.
In a statement to mark World Diabetes Day (November 14), the IDA warned that a diet high in sugary, energy-dense foods has serious implications not just for oral health but also for chronic health problems such as heart disease and diabetes.
Half of all Irish 12-year-olds and three-quarters of all 15-year-olds have some decay in their permanent teeth, noted Conor McAlister, BDS, president of the IDA."In Ireland, we have one of the highest per capita soft drinks consumption in the Western world, at over 100 liters per capita per annum, an average of at least one 330 mL can per day," he stated in a press release.
The IDA believes the minister for health should ensure public health warning labels are carried on all carbonated soft drinks and introduce legislation that would stipulate that the sugar content of food and drinks is highlighted.
"The health warning system has really worked well for tobacco and alcohol products, and it is time for similar warnings to be placed on food and drink products so that consumers can make a fully informed choice," Dr. McAlister said. "Studies show it is children from more deprived backgrounds who have a higher risk of decay, and unfortunately these are the very people who have been hardest hit by cutbacks in the public dental service."
Ireland is fluoridated.
By DrBicuspid Staff
November 14, 2011 -- The Irish Dental Association (IDA) is calling on health officials to require public health warning labels on carbonated soft drinks.
In a statement to mark World Diabetes Day (November 14), the IDA warned that a diet high in sugary, energy-dense foods has serious implications not just for oral health but also for chronic health problems such as heart disease and diabetes.
Half of all Irish 12-year-olds and three-quarters of all 15-year-olds have some decay in their permanent teeth, noted Conor McAlister, BDS, president of the IDA."In Ireland, we have one of the highest per capita soft drinks consumption in the Western world, at over 100 liters per capita per annum, an average of at least one 330 mL can per day," he stated in a press release.
The IDA believes the minister for health should ensure public health warning labels are carried on all carbonated soft drinks and introduce legislation that would stipulate that the sugar content of food and drinks is highlighted.
"The health warning system has really worked well for tobacco and alcohol products, and it is time for similar warnings to be placed on food and drink products so that consumers can make a fully informed choice," Dr. McAlister said. "Studies show it is children from more deprived backgrounds who have a higher risk of decay, and unfortunately these are the very people who have been hardest hit by cutbacks in the public dental service."
Ireland is fluoridated.
14 Nov 2011
Daily Echo - In my View- Time to ditch fluoridation for a better option
By STEPHEN PECKHAM,Reader in health policy at the London School of Hygiene and tropical Medicine
Time to ditch fluoridation for a better option
FOR the past three years there has been much debate about the need to tackle poor dental health within the city. Unfortunately, the only solution put forward has been water fluoridation. This is despite a poor evidence base, overwhelming public opposition, rising costs and growing concern about increased rates of fluorosis among children living in areas with fluoridated water.
A recent Radio 4 programme featured an item on effective ways of tackling dental problems in children in order to reduce dental health inequalities. Not once did the dental health professionals mention water fluoridation. The discussion focused on the success of the Childsmile scheme which targets prevention services to those children most in need. This scheme, which started in Glasgow, has now been rolled out across Scotland and promotes the use of fluoride varnishes for pre-school children combined with community -based education programmes.
I have spent time talking to dental health professionals and find the majority rarely mention water fluoridation, preferring instead to concentrate on targeted prevention and treatment programmes.
Proven alternative
There is good quality evidence to support fluoride varnishing and education programmes for children when delivered collaboratively by local health and community agencies. The Childsmile scheme has been proven to work well and provides a template for best practice which is being copied in other areas of the UK. it also makes sense to engage more health and social care workers in oral health promotion. Simple screening techniques should be taught to all health professionals who work with pre-school children and proper referral processes to dental services put in place. Why not do this in Southampton?
With the South Central Strategic Health Authority now part of a new larger body called NHS South of England, there is the opportunity to revisit the decision to fluoridate our local water supply. Now that Southampton City Council opposes water fluoridation, the last vestige of local support for the scheme has disappeared. With the demise of SCSHA, there can be no justification for NHS South of England to impose an unwanted, ineffective and expensive scheme on local people, especially when both the city and county councils have vowed to stop fluoridation when they have the powers to do so in 2013. To proceed now would not only be an act of unprecedented arrogance, it would also be a huge waste of NHS resources.
13 Nov 2011
Canada - Fluoride removal debate heats up
Seeing the child's fluorosis would make anybody I would have thought think twice about this practice.
12 Nov 2011
11 Nov 2011
Daily Echo - letter
Concerns 'have been dismissed'
THE failure to provide proper, or indeed any, answers to important questions about fluoridation, as encountered by Mrs Kinchington (Daily Echo, November 1), has been a characteristic of the whole scandalous process, in which the concerns of the public have been treated with contemptuous dismissal.
The very absence of replies has in turn prompted other questions, not least because it emerges that much of the needed research has never even been done, or when done, never examined.
In my opinion information from Dr Williams published in the Daily Echo on August 20 proved conclusively that the SHA is not fit to give direction on fluoridation, and that fact alone should have brought about official investigation.
The nature of the consultation was early recognised by public and MPs alike and yet, when we ask why matters were allowed to proceed, we get no reply. The same applies when we ask why parliament considers our water to be a fit vehicle for random medication. No one admits to knowing who expects to benefit financially from having fluoride forced upon us, yet an answer to that point would very likely give us a clue as to where the real influence lies. G PAYNE, Woolston, Southampton
THE failure to provide proper, or indeed any, answers to important questions about fluoridation, as encountered by Mrs Kinchington (Daily Echo, November 1), has been a characteristic of the whole scandalous process, in which the concerns of the public have been treated with contemptuous dismissal.
The very absence of replies has in turn prompted other questions, not least because it emerges that much of the needed research has never even been done, or when done, never examined.
In my opinion information from Dr Williams published in the Daily Echo on August 20 proved conclusively that the SHA is not fit to give direction on fluoridation, and that fact alone should have brought about official investigation.
The nature of the consultation was early recognised by public and MPs alike and yet, when we ask why matters were allowed to proceed, we get no reply. The same applies when we ask why parliament considers our water to be a fit vehicle for random medication. No one admits to knowing who expects to benefit financially from having fluoride forced upon us, yet an answer to that point would very likely give us a clue as to where the real influence lies. G PAYNE, Woolston, Southampton
10 Nov 2011
NZ - Fluoride inquiry part of Labour's health plans
Fluoride inquiry part of Labour's health plans
By Martin Johnston
Labour has promised to hold an inquiry into the divisive issue of adding fluoride to drinking water supplies to prevent tooth decay.
The Ministry of Health, serving both Labour and National administrations, has long advocated fluoridation as a "safe, effective and affordable way to prevent and reduce tooth decay across the whole population".
More than half of New Zealanders live in areas of fluoridated water supplies, but it is up to local councils to decide whether to add the chemical, and some are turning against the practice. Last month, the New Plymouth District Council voted to cease fluoridation.
In its health policy, released yesterday, the Labour Party said that in government it would "hold an independent inquiry into the fluoridation of drinking water, with a view to developing a national policy on fluoridation as a national dental health measure".
Health spokesman Grant Robertson said he personally supported fluoridation.
Asked if the intention to write a national policy indicated the possibility of mandatory fluoridation, he said, "I'm not going to pre-judge that."
Greens health spokeswoman Sue Kedgley said her party supported "alternatives to mass-medication of water" - dental hygiene and reducing high-sugar foods and drinks - and local decision-making on fluoridation.
"It shouldn't be imposed on all New Zealanders through some national standard."
How independent would that be, a panel stuffed with dentists?
By Martin Johnston
Labour has promised to hold an inquiry into the divisive issue of adding fluoride to drinking water supplies to prevent tooth decay.
The Ministry of Health, serving both Labour and National administrations, has long advocated fluoridation as a "safe, effective and affordable way to prevent and reduce tooth decay across the whole population".
More than half of New Zealanders live in areas of fluoridated water supplies, but it is up to local councils to decide whether to add the chemical, and some are turning against the practice. Last month, the New Plymouth District Council voted to cease fluoridation.
In its health policy, released yesterday, the Labour Party said that in government it would "hold an independent inquiry into the fluoridation of drinking water, with a view to developing a national policy on fluoridation as a national dental health measure".
Health spokesman Grant Robertson said he personally supported fluoridation.
Asked if the intention to write a national policy indicated the possibility of mandatory fluoridation, he said, "I'm not going to pre-judge that."
Greens health spokeswoman Sue Kedgley said her party supported "alternatives to mass-medication of water" - dental hygiene and reducing high-sugar foods and drinks - and local decision-making on fluoridation.
"It shouldn't be imposed on all New Zealanders through some national standard."
How independent would that be, a panel stuffed with dentists?
9 Nov 2011
USA - Treating children to healthier teeth
North Carolina is 88% fluoridated.NYSCOF
....Dental decay is the most common chronic diseases of childhood, more common than asthma or obesity. In North Carolina, 63 percent of children begin their school career in poor oral health. That means in the average kindergarten classroom about 13 children suffer from decayed, filled or missing primary teeth. But this number represents an average; when we dig deeper into the data, stark geographic disparities emerge which suggest some communities lack access the resources needed to protect their children's oral health.
Poor oral health undermines children's readiness to learn and jeopardizes their future success. Children struggling with dental decay experience significant pain that limits their ability to eat, sleep and pay attention in class. They are more likely to miss school as a result of their dental problems, resulting in lost learning time and lost opportunities.
Dental decay doesn't just hinder children's educational progress; it undermines our ability to create the capable, healthy workforce businesses need to thrive; ultimately, costing the state millions in increased health care costs and diminished productivity. Children with untreated dental decay face greater risk of debilitating medical conditions later in life including health disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes. These serious, chronic illnesses are more likely to send workers rushing to the emergency room, keeping them out of work......
....Dental decay is the most common chronic diseases of childhood, more common than asthma or obesity. In North Carolina, 63 percent of children begin their school career in poor oral health. That means in the average kindergarten classroom about 13 children suffer from decayed, filled or missing primary teeth. But this number represents an average; when we dig deeper into the data, stark geographic disparities emerge which suggest some communities lack access the resources needed to protect their children's oral health.
Poor oral health undermines children's readiness to learn and jeopardizes their future success. Children struggling with dental decay experience significant pain that limits their ability to eat, sleep and pay attention in class. They are more likely to miss school as a result of their dental problems, resulting in lost learning time and lost opportunities.
Dental decay doesn't just hinder children's educational progress; it undermines our ability to create the capable, healthy workforce businesses need to thrive; ultimately, costing the state millions in increased health care costs and diminished productivity. Children with untreated dental decay face greater risk of debilitating medical conditions later in life including health disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes. These serious, chronic illnesses are more likely to send workers rushing to the emergency room, keeping them out of work......
8 Nov 2011
41% of American Teenagers Have Inherited This Disease
Click title to go to Dr Mercola's web page for more information.
6 Nov 2011
The CDC's Stance on Water Fluoridation—Another Misleading Recommendation
The CDC's Stance on Water Fluoridation—Another Misleading Recommendation
Take water fluoridation for example.
Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that since the 1970's, the dental health professionals in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have had sole control over the agency's stance supporting water fluoridation.
The CDC is part of a larger administrative structure that provides intra-agency support and resource sharing for health issues that require the input from more than one area of expertise. Other offices that share information and expertise with the CDC include the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Minority Health and Health Equity, and the Agency for Toxic Substances. The general assumption has been that the agency used a broad range of expert input to evaluate fluoride before reaching the decision to support water fluoridation.
After all, since fluoride is swallowed, it stands to reason it may have an impact on your whole body, not just your teeth.
Yet the documents show that no CDC toxicologists, minority health professionals, experts in diabetes, or others outside the Oral Health Division had any input into the agency's position.
This flies in the face of what the agency claims, and what water-, health- and political leaders have believed about the way the CDC operates. Without these additional experts from other fields, can we reasonably believe that the agency has properly assessed the research on whole-body harm from fluoridation? The documents have drawn attention once again to the CDC's and EPA's fluoride safety statements, which appear completely at odds with current scientific knowledge, and the fact that no outside experts from related fields were ever included may very well explain this discrepancy.
This maybe in the USA but no doubt the CMO is influenced by this authority.
Take water fluoridation for example.
Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that since the 1970's, the dental health professionals in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have had sole control over the agency's stance supporting water fluoridation.
The CDC is part of a larger administrative structure that provides intra-agency support and resource sharing for health issues that require the input from more than one area of expertise. Other offices that share information and expertise with the CDC include the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Minority Health and Health Equity, and the Agency for Toxic Substances. The general assumption has been that the agency used a broad range of expert input to evaluate fluoride before reaching the decision to support water fluoridation.
After all, since fluoride is swallowed, it stands to reason it may have an impact on your whole body, not just your teeth.
Yet the documents show that no CDC toxicologists, minority health professionals, experts in diabetes, or others outside the Oral Health Division had any input into the agency's position.
This flies in the face of what the agency claims, and what water-, health- and political leaders have believed about the way the CDC operates. Without these additional experts from other fields, can we reasonably believe that the agency has properly assessed the research on whole-body harm from fluoridation? The documents have drawn attention once again to the CDC's and EPA's fluoride safety statements, which appear completely at odds with current scientific knowledge, and the fact that no outside experts from related fields were ever included may very well explain this discrepancy.
This maybe in the USA but no doubt the CMO is influenced by this authority.
5 Nov 2011
4 Nov 2011
LETTER IN ANDOVER ADVERTISER 4TH NOV
LETTER IN ANDOVER ADVERTISER 4TH NOV
One of the most contentious human rights issues we face locally is fluoridation - the use of the public water supply to provide medical treatment without individual consent, using the unlicensed toxic chemical waste of the pesticide and fertilizer industries. Europe has rejected fluoridation as unsafe, unbeneficial and unethical. Now it is being rejected across America and Canada and other American-influenced countries. As a policy it is doomed and discredited. Several weeks ago a resolution opposing water fluoridation was passed by the largest and oldest Hispanic civil rights organization in the United States, the League of United Latin American Citizens - LULAC. This Resolution may prove to be one of the most powerful official indictments against fluoridation to date. Below are clauses that have a direct bearing on our local situation. This Government's moral duty is to ban fluoridation by law. Handing over control to local councils does not make it safer nor does a democratic majority vote make it ethical. Medication is the sole right of the individual. I have sent the Resolution to Sir George Young, whose support of this human, civil rights
and medical abuse, is in line with Government policy - an indication that in England powerful industries pull weight, and powerless people have to suffer.
EXCERPTS FROM THE LULAC RESOLUTION
“WHEREAS, the purpose of a public water supply is to supply water to the entire community which is composed of people with varying health conditions, in varying stages of life, and of varying economic status; not to forcibly mass medicate the population which is a civil rights violation; and
WHEREAS, fluoridation is mass medication of the public through the public water supply; and
WHEREAS, current science shows that fluoridation chemicals pose increased risk to sensitive subpopulations, including infants, the elderly, diabetics, kidney patients, and people with poor nutritional status; and
WHEREAS, the proponents of fluoridation promised a safe and effective dental health additive, but the San Antonio Water System's (SAWS) contract for fluoridation chemicals proves a "bait and switch"; as SAWS is adding the toxic waste by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry, that has no warranty for its safety and effectiveness for any purpose from the supplier (PENCCO, Inc.) or the source (Mosaic Chemical); and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that LULAC commends efforts by organizations that oppose forced mass medication of the public drinking supplies using fluorides that are industrial grade, toxic waste by-products which contain contaminants (arsenic, lead, mercury) which further endanger life; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that LULAC supports efforts by all citizens working to stop forced medication through the public water system because it violates civil rights; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that LULAC opposes the public policy of fluoridation because it fails to meet legislative intent; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that LULAC demands to know why government agencies entrusted with protecting the public health are more protective of the policy of fluoridation than they are of public health.
Approved this 1st day of July 2011.
One of the most contentious human rights issues we face locally is fluoridation - the use of the public water supply to provide medical treatment without individual consent, using the unlicensed toxic chemical waste of the pesticide and fertilizer industries. Europe has rejected fluoridation as unsafe, unbeneficial and unethical. Now it is being rejected across America and Canada and other American-influenced countries. As a policy it is doomed and discredited. Several weeks ago a resolution opposing water fluoridation was passed by the largest and oldest Hispanic civil rights organization in the United States, the League of United Latin American Citizens - LULAC. This Resolution may prove to be one of the most powerful official indictments against fluoridation to date. Below are clauses that have a direct bearing on our local situation. This Government's moral duty is to ban fluoridation by law. Handing over control to local councils does not make it safer nor does a democratic majority vote make it ethical. Medication is the sole right of the individual. I have sent the Resolution to Sir George Young, whose support of this human, civil rights
and medical abuse, is in line with Government policy - an indication that in England powerful industries pull weight, and powerless people have to suffer.
EXCERPTS FROM THE LULAC RESOLUTION
“WHEREAS, the purpose of a public water supply is to supply water to the entire community which is composed of people with varying health conditions, in varying stages of life, and of varying economic status; not to forcibly mass medicate the population which is a civil rights violation; and
WHEREAS, fluoridation is mass medication of the public through the public water supply; and
WHEREAS, current science shows that fluoridation chemicals pose increased risk to sensitive subpopulations, including infants, the elderly, diabetics, kidney patients, and people with poor nutritional status; and
WHEREAS, the proponents of fluoridation promised a safe and effective dental health additive, but the San Antonio Water System's (SAWS) contract for fluoridation chemicals proves a "bait and switch"; as SAWS is adding the toxic waste by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry, that has no warranty for its safety and effectiveness for any purpose from the supplier (PENCCO, Inc.) or the source (Mosaic Chemical); and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that LULAC commends efforts by organizations that oppose forced mass medication of the public drinking supplies using fluorides that are industrial grade, toxic waste by-products which contain contaminants (arsenic, lead, mercury) which further endanger life; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that LULAC supports efforts by all citizens working to stop forced medication through the public water system because it violates civil rights; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that LULAC opposes the public policy of fluoridation because it fails to meet legislative intent; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that LULAC demands to know why government agencies entrusted with protecting the public health are more protective of the policy of fluoridation than they are of public health.
Approved this 1st day of July 2011.
3 Nov 2011
Canada - Paul Connett, Ph.D., The Case Against Fluoride, co-author, Fluoride Action Network
Fluoridation critic responds
In his letter to The Oakville Beaver, Ivor Davies asked: is there anything more to be said on water fluoridation? The answer is clearly yes.
Davies puts great store in the fact that fluoride occurs ‘naturally’ in some groundwater (the average is about 0.1 ppm in North America) and in the sea at 1.3 ppm, but just because something occurs naturally does not make it safe.
Arsenic also appears naturally in some groundwater. What Davies fails to mention is the natural levels in mothers’ milk. These are extremely low.
In a non-fluoridated community, the level is 0.004 ppm and rises slightly to 0.011 ppm in a fluoridated community (NRC, 2006, p.40). This means that parents that bottle feed their babies in Halton will be giving them over 100 times the dose a breast-fed baby gets. That’s not a wise thing to do.
Nor does Davies mention the fact that nearly every dental researcher now concedes that fluoride — if it works at all — works topically, i.e. on the surface of the teeth.
Why on earth force systemic risks on the baby’s delicate developing tissues before its teeth have emerged?
Needless to say, Davies also ignores — along with every other piece of scientific information presented in our book The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green 2010) — the fact there have now been 25 studies that have found an association between moderate exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ.
Is Davies happy that no health agency in Canada has attempted to investigate this serious matter for itself?
Or does he believe that saving a minimal amount of tooth decay (0.6 of one permanent tooth surface, according to the largest survey conducted in the U.S.) could possibly justify damaging a child’s mental development? Or our bones or our endocrine system (NRC, 2006)?
Davies claims opponents engage in “disinformation” and “misinformation,” but does not give a single instance of such.
As Davies singles me out as a leader (he says granddaddy) of this movement I request that he provide one example of where I have intentionally misinformed anyone on this issue.
He also claims that the opposition to fluoridation is miniscule.
However, nearly 4,000 professionals are now calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide.
If Davies is so convinced that the majority of scientists enthusiastically support this outdated practice, how come he cannot produce a single one of them to debate opponents like myself in Halton?
I am ready Mr. Davies, are you?
Hopefully, Halton will come to its senses and join the other 27 communities, with a combined population of over 2.4 million that have halted fluoridation since October 2010.
Meanwhile, Davies’ sarcastic and superficial comments add little to a genuine scientific debate on this issue.
Paul Connett, Ph.D., The Case Against Fluoride, co-author, Fluoride Action Network, director
In his letter to The Oakville Beaver, Ivor Davies asked: is there anything more to be said on water fluoridation? The answer is clearly yes.
Davies puts great store in the fact that fluoride occurs ‘naturally’ in some groundwater (the average is about 0.1 ppm in North America) and in the sea at 1.3 ppm, but just because something occurs naturally does not make it safe.
Arsenic also appears naturally in some groundwater. What Davies fails to mention is the natural levels in mothers’ milk. These are extremely low.
In a non-fluoridated community, the level is 0.004 ppm and rises slightly to 0.011 ppm in a fluoridated community (NRC, 2006, p.40). This means that parents that bottle feed their babies in Halton will be giving them over 100 times the dose a breast-fed baby gets. That’s not a wise thing to do.
Nor does Davies mention the fact that nearly every dental researcher now concedes that fluoride — if it works at all — works topically, i.e. on the surface of the teeth.
Why on earth force systemic risks on the baby’s delicate developing tissues before its teeth have emerged?
Needless to say, Davies also ignores — along with every other piece of scientific information presented in our book The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green 2010) — the fact there have now been 25 studies that have found an association between moderate exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ.
Is Davies happy that no health agency in Canada has attempted to investigate this serious matter for itself?
Or does he believe that saving a minimal amount of tooth decay (0.6 of one permanent tooth surface, according to the largest survey conducted in the U.S.) could possibly justify damaging a child’s mental development? Or our bones or our endocrine system (NRC, 2006)?
Davies claims opponents engage in “disinformation” and “misinformation,” but does not give a single instance of such.
As Davies singles me out as a leader (he says granddaddy) of this movement I request that he provide one example of where I have intentionally misinformed anyone on this issue.
He also claims that the opposition to fluoridation is miniscule.
However, nearly 4,000 professionals are now calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide.
If Davies is so convinced that the majority of scientists enthusiastically support this outdated practice, how come he cannot produce a single one of them to debate opponents like myself in Halton?
I am ready Mr. Davies, are you?
Hopefully, Halton will come to its senses and join the other 27 communities, with a combined population of over 2.4 million that have halted fluoridation since October 2010.
Meanwhile, Davies’ sarcastic and superficial comments add little to a genuine scientific debate on this issue.
Paul Connett, Ph.D., The Case Against Fluoride, co-author, Fluoride Action Network, director
2 Nov 2011
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
House of Lords
Fluoridation
Questions
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 17 October (WA 14), why their statement that individual valid consent must be obtained before starting a treatment which is not classified as a medicinal product does not apply to prophylactic treatment by fluoride added to the water supply.[HL12788]
1 Nov 2011 : Column WA234
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): Fluoridated water is not a medicinal product. Drinking fluoridated water does not constitute receiving a medical treatment. Nor does drinking naturally fluoridated water at either the same or a similar concentration to that which is achieved through fluoridation constitute receiving a medical treatment. Individual valid consent is therefore not required in either instance.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 19 October (WA 75), whether they will invite the Cochrane Oral Health Group to include an update on the five objectives addressed by the York systematic review of water fluoridation in 2000 in its examination of the current evidence surrounding water fluoridation and dental decay for the United States Centers for Disease Control.[HL12789]
Earl Howe: Cochrane Review Groups are funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and managed by the NIHR Evaluations, Trials and Studies Co-ordinating Centre (NETS CC) based at the University of Southampton. The Cochrane Groups themselves identify areas within their disciplines that they consider require investigation and submit their business plans to NETS CC for approval. Therefore, as the acknowledged experts in their fields, the Cochrane Groups have autonomy over the work they decide to take forward. Occasionally the Health Technology Assessment Programme commissions Cochrane Review Groups to conduct or update reviews where there is an identified need.
We understand that the Oral Health Group has no immediate plans to carry out a systematic review of water fluoridation and we are guided by this. In the past, the group has carried out work on adding fluoride to milk and its use by dentists in dental treatments.
Fluoridation
Questions
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 17 October (WA 14), why their statement that individual valid consent must be obtained before starting a treatment which is not classified as a medicinal product does not apply to prophylactic treatment by fluoride added to the water supply.[HL12788]
1 Nov 2011 : Column WA234
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): Fluoridated water is not a medicinal product. Drinking fluoridated water does not constitute receiving a medical treatment. Nor does drinking naturally fluoridated water at either the same or a similar concentration to that which is achieved through fluoridation constitute receiving a medical treatment. Individual valid consent is therefore not required in either instance.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 19 October (WA 75), whether they will invite the Cochrane Oral Health Group to include an update on the five objectives addressed by the York systematic review of water fluoridation in 2000 in its examination of the current evidence surrounding water fluoridation and dental decay for the United States Centers for Disease Control.[HL12789]
Earl Howe: Cochrane Review Groups are funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and managed by the NIHR Evaluations, Trials and Studies Co-ordinating Centre (NETS CC) based at the University of Southampton. The Cochrane Groups themselves identify areas within their disciplines that they consider require investigation and submit their business plans to NETS CC for approval. Therefore, as the acknowledged experts in their fields, the Cochrane Groups have autonomy over the work they decide to take forward. Occasionally the Health Technology Assessment Programme commissions Cochrane Review Groups to conduct or update reviews where there is an identified need.
We understand that the Oral Health Group has no immediate plans to carry out a systematic review of water fluoridation and we are guided by this. In the past, the group has carried out work on adding fluoride to milk and its use by dentists in dental treatments.
1 Nov 2011
Daily Echo - SOAPBOX: Fluoride in our drinking water
I'm still waiting for an answerI AM writing to say that I have written a letter to John Newton at the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) about fluoride going into our water supply.
I sent a recorded delivery letter to him but have not received anything back, that was quite a few weeks ago now. I asked him ten questions about fluoride, I don't think he knows how to answer them as he knows that he will be mass medicating us all if this goes in. That would be the day when our democratic rights will be gone. If fluoride goes in I for one will not vote for anyone again. As what would be the point when even the Government don't seem to listen?
I think that if the SHA goes in 2013 then they will push this through about that time, then whoever takes over will say "well we can't afford to take fluoride out now". The SHA put it in, it has nothing to do with us. A case of pass the buck. That is just my theory.
I also think that they are all crafty. They all know full well that most of the people in Southampton and surrounding areas do not want this fluoride added - and why should we?
The SHA should leave our water well alone. It is not theirs to tamper with, it belongs to us when it comes through our taps.
It is our lifeline and we pay for it to be fit to drink not for them to add a toxic waste fluoride that we can't even filter out or boil out so we would have no choice but to drink it, bath in it and wash our hair in it unless we can afford bottled water. But it would still get into our bodies through bathing etc.
The moral of all this is whether it is good or bad what gives anyone the right to treat anything through our water supply.
Who do they think they are? Not genuine health people that's for sure.
Also I think it strange that we all have to have water meters now, is that so we don't all run our taps out of protest if they add this rubbish? I wonder? I personally don't want a water meter. Once you had to request one if you wanted one and that is how it should be.
MRS K KINCHINGTON,
Address supplied
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
