7 Jun 2014

From facebook

Letter to Times and Star -
Not content with poisoning the people of N.W. Cumbria Public Health England (PHE) now want to poison the whole country! Their totally disingenuous report (25th March 2014) is a rehash of old discredited surveys dating back 20 years - of which more later. Within this survey they continually state, "Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral found in water in varying amounts. It is also present in some food" giving the false impression that its "naturally occurring fluoride" being added to our water. This couldn't be further from the truth. It's not naturally occurring calcium fluoride thats being added to our water its an industrial toxic waste called hexafluorosilicic acid.
PHE go on to state, "While there is no scientific difference between naturally occurring and added fluoride in the water that comes out of consumers’ taps"… I can't believe that PHE would purposely lie about such a thing, so that can only mean, possibly even more unbelievable, that they simply haven't got a clue what they are talking about!
Hexafluorosilicic acid, according to Roholms toxicology report, is 25 times more lethally toxic than calcium fluoride. PHE are saying it's safe to ingest one part per million calcium fluoride which they think is the same as hexafluorosilicic acid. This means that we are drinking 1 ppm of hexafluorosilicic acid which is the equivalent of 25ppm calcium fluoride! So, to recap, drinking water standards were established for the much less toxic calcium fluoride which is listed as a moderately toxic compound compared to hexafluorosilicic acid, which is categorized as extremely toxic.
It gets worse, one of the surveys that PHE continually cite and have done so yet again in this recent report is the York Review conducted by the university of York in 2000. What they don't tell you however is that Professor Trevor A. Sheldon Head of the Depatment of Health Studies says this, "In my capacity of chair of the Advisory Group for the systematic review on the effects of water fluoridation recently conducted by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination the University of York and as its founding director, I am concerned that the results of the review have been widely misrepresented." He then goes on to give a list, to long to mention here, of just how the review has been misrepresented. One point he makes that I will quote, however, is this, "the review did not show water fluoridation to be safe."
Just a couple of reasons for doubting the validity of anything PHE has to say with regards to water fluoridation. So, who can we trust as an authoritative figure on water fluoridation - politicians? I'd wager 99.9% of politicians haven't got a clue on this issue and rely on advice from the likes of PHE. It seems that anyone arguing pro-fluoridation has a vested interest i.e. they are being paid to hold these views, whilst anyone arguing against fluoridation seem to only be concerned with their own good health and that of their children.
Perhaps we should look at who benefits from adding hexafluorisilic acid to our water. In the case of West Cumbria its a company called Yara a multi-national fertiliser manufacturer. Hexafluorosilicic acid is the toxic waste scraped from the chimneys of Yaras' huge chemical plants (If you haven't heard this before you won't believe it so I suggest you do some research because its absolutely true!). Instead of the massive headache and cost of trying to dispose of this toxic waste they end up getting paid to have it taken off their hands! From Yaras perspective it would be nice if the whole of the UK were fluoridated as that would mean they could rid themselves of even more toxic waste. Perhaps PHE's recent announcement (25th march 2014) has come after some strong lobbying from a big multi-national company - is that how it works nowadays?
Please go to www.cumbriansaginstfluoride.com for more information.

Old but good letter worth reading.

No comments: