11 Jun 2014

Exchange of letters between Cllr Chris Cooke and Lord Colwyn

Dear Lord Colwyn
Thank you for your prompt response.  Although it does seem very scarce in detail. 
The incidence of dental decay when compared to to non fluoridated areas does no more than tell me the statistics have been carefully selective.  It is not science – it is almost no better than anecdotal observation. Any “study” purporting to have such a conclusion could be discredited.
I also think that the effect of fluorosis on teeth needs a bit more of a response than that you are simply “aware” of the issue.  What would you propose should be done about it?  It was considered when fluoridation was first set to the one part per million that “acceptable” levels of fluorosis would be 10% of children.  We now find it is closer to 40% – possibly due to the plethora of fluoride coming in from many sources. Ireland and America for instance have reduce their fluoride levels to 0.7 parts per million.
At least in toothpaste it is Sodium fluoride (better known to some of us older ones as rat poison) of pharmaceutical grading and can be washed and spat out.  In water there does occur “natural” fluoride. That is Calcium fluoride. It is only in it’s natural form that calcium fluoride may be excreted from the body. Otherwise the body needs to deal with the released aqueous fluoride ions by sucking calcium from bones and organs in order to excrete it.  This is science. No one is saying this does not happen.  Pro-fluoridation people simply gloss over it with their outrageous claims that “fluoride is good for teeth”.
We are now told that “fluoride works topically” on teeth.  Fluoridated toothpaste may perhaps explain how tooth decay has been falling at least as fast in non-fluoridated areas.  Although my personal view is that fluoride in any form (being a poison) will kill the bacteria on teeth that lead to tooth decay. It would be a lot better if education programmes and good practice got sugar out of the diets of young children.  But certainly the internal digestion of fluoride does no more than damage teeth. And it would be absurd to think that it could have that effect on teeth and not affect the rest of the body.  Therefore the same process by which fluoride damages the tooth will also damage the skeletal structures inside the body.  There is NEVER any testing on the NHS for skeletal fluorosis. They simply call it arthritis and wait for suffers to die (probably from some other, maybe associated?, condition) after many years of increasing and unnecessary pain.  It is only in the very late stages of skeletal fluorosis that it is ever identified as such. Too late!
But your response to this is that somehow I might not understand?  I think I have shown here that I do understand the effect of the disassociated fluoride ion the human body.  I would add that you will find NO process or organ whatsoever in the human body that requires fluoride.  It is equally absurd to think we might improve on God’s gift of health by adding fluoride – in whatever form.
But – now fluoride ions aside – you seem dismissive of what other poisons the use of hexafluorosilicic acid also adds to the water. Over 5 parts “other” for each 1 part of fluoride. The mixture is a veritable cocktail of toxins and dangerous heavy metals. This as you know is dismissed because the water is deemed to be of potable quality and within limits at the point when it comes from the tap. The fact that such a mixture being dripped into our water, our bodies (where they act as accumulative poisons) and the environment minute by minute, year by year, naturally alarms most people if ever they get to understand it. Anybody else would face serious legal prosecution, probably imprisonment, for doing this.
In short your response seems to précis and somehow parody the complaint I made in my first letter to you – that pro-fluoridationists blandly accept without any real scientific proofs that fluoridation is somehow “good” (“safe and effective” is what they invariably say). Any argument thereafter being sheer emotive – pertaining to the extraction of young people’s decaying teeth.  You might say similarly about the scientific evidence suggesting very many disorders/diseases caused by fluoridation.  Maybe? But at least the anti-fluoride science looks far more widespread, detailed and convincing than the ridiculously poor science on which pro-fluoridationists rely. 
It does appear to me that the only thing really going for the pro-fluoridationists views is that they are backed by the NHS, the Government. And the big corporations who would otherwise have huge expense and headaches ever trying to dispose of this very toxic waste.
Perhaps the more cynical amongst us would say forget government or the NHS – it’s the money of the corporate industries that keeps this devil’s fluoridation project afloat?   Can you see why people might think like that?
Chris Cooke
From: COLWYN, Lord
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 12:28 PM
Subject: RE: Letter from Mr Chris Cooke

Dear Mr Cooke

Thank you very much for your letter. I am always pleased to hear from people who have different views about the benefits of fluoridation at 1 part per million.  I believe that the situation and incidence of dental decay in Birmingham when compared with non-fluoridated areas really does speak for itself. Of course I am aware of the incidence of fluorosis in some fluoride areas due to an excess of the ion.
I spent many years trying to deal with the problems of fillings and extractions for young children and I still have nightmares about my experiences removing decayed teeth under general anaesthetic. It really isn't fair to withhold such a simple preventive measure.
Your comments about fluoride and  hexafluorosalicilic acid do make me think that you do not really understand the mechanisms and use of the disassociated fluoride ion.
However, I respect your views and look forward to the next stages of this on-going debate.
Yours sincerely

Anthony Colwyn

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

One would assume from the Lords letter that some type of natural fluoride is added. This is not the case; only calcium fluoride occurs naturally, and it has never been used for fluoridation.

The chemicals used to fluoridate 90% of public drinking water are industrial grade hazardous wastes captured in the air pollution-control scrubber systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry, called silicofluorides. ("Fluorine Recovery in the Fertilizer Industry - A Review," Phosphorus & Potassium, No. 103, Sept/Oct 1979.) (Also, see 1-1: "Fluoridation: A Mandate to Dump Toxic Waste in the Name of Public Health", George Glasser, Journalist, St. Petersburg, FL, July 22, 1995.)