Hampshire Against fluoridation

New York Times' letters

2012-01-31T08:58:00.000Z

Fluoridation Pro and Con (2 Letters)Published: January 30, 2012
To the Editor:
Re “Dental Exam Went Well? Thank Fluoride” (Personal Health, Jan. 24): When the three of us (retired professors in chemistry, physics and biology) wrote a book on the fluoridation controversy, we hoped it would raise the level of the debate. In “The Case Against Fluoride,” our arguments were supported with numerous scientific citations, which proponents of fluoridation have made little effort to acknowledge or refute. We cannot expect sensible decisions to be made on these matters when one side pretends there is no debate and a leading newspaper like The New York Times lets them get away with it.
Paul Connett
Canton, N.Y.
James Beck, M.D.
Calgary, Alberta
Spedding Micklem
Edinburgh

♦

To the Editor:

Congratulations to Jane E. Brody on her well-written article on water fluoridation, which is in line with accepted scientific evidence and peer-reviewed articles in numerous journals. Her writing is a contrast to the ubiquitous misinformation and misuse of raw data available on the Internet. Water fluoridation not only saves money, but also helps avoid pain and suffering.
Tom Curran
Elmira, N.Y.

Never the twain shall meet.

Dr. Paul Connett on fluoride Jan-25-2012 London ONTARIO

2012-01-30T09:01:00.001Z

fluoridation is ineffective at reducing tooth decay

2012-01-30T08:43:00.001Z

nyscof posted at 12:46 am on Mon, Jan 30, 2012.
Modern science indicates that fluoridation is ineffective at reducing tooth decay, harmful to health and a waste of money. Fluoridation opposition is scientific, respectable and growing

More than 4,000 professionals (including 331 dentists and 443 MD’s) urge that fluoridation be stopped citing scientific evidence that ingesting fluoride is ineffective at reducing tooth decay and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluoridealert.org/professionals-statement.aspx

Eleven US EPA unions representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals are calling for a moratorium on fluoridation.

The CDC reports that 225 less communities adjusted for fluoride between 2006 and 2008. About 100 US and Canadian communities rejected fluoridation since 2008.

In Nebraska, 53 out of 66 towns voted not to fluoridate in 2008 and 2010, reports the PEW Foundation.

Daily Echo - Fluoride case should go to court of human rights

2012-01-30T08:34:00.000Z

Fluoride case should go to court of human rights
COULD the SHA or Southern Water tell us from whose factory chimneys will the poison fluoride be coming from, as we have little in the way of manufacturing now and very few chimneys in this part of the world?
Is it going to be imported from other countries such as China, which is awash with chimneys, and whose population, if living in those areas, have to wear masks when outside?
Where has it been dumped before now, and what happens if it cannot be placed in our drinking water?
Finally, has Hampshire Against Fluoride had any thoughts about taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights? There are I'm sure many of us who would back them and contribute to any cost this incurred.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED.

Fluoride Toxicity with Heather Gingerich, pt 2 of 2

2012-01-29T08:52:00.001Z

Pam Killeen on fluoride Jan-25-2012 London ONTARIO

2012-01-29T08:43:00.001Z

Good presentation

Bacteria key player in dental problems

2012-01-29T08:39:00.001Z

Bacteria key player in dental problems
Dear Dr. Reitz: I am 30 years old and never needed a filling. Have scientific
discoveries eliminated cavities or am I just lucky. - June of Reading
Dear June: The addition of fluoride to water and toothpaste has hardened teeth, making them more resistant to the acids produced by oral bacteria, but it has not eliminated tooth decay.In my dental practice I have patients that have never had a cavity and others with multiple areas of decay. Cavities usually are blamed on eating candy, but candy is only one part of the problem. The chance of getting tooth decay islikely related to the amount of a specific bacteria - Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) - present in the mouth.

The mouth is home to thousands of different bacteria. It has been known for many years that S mutans is the bacteria most responsible for tooth decay, finding a method of eliminating it has been the problem. Most methods of killing oral bacteria only work for a short time, plus having some beneficial bacteria is important to prevent overgrowth of yeast. New research from the UCLA School of Dentistry may have found a method of selectively removing S mutans.

Research conduced by oral biologist Dr. Wenyuan Shi of UCLA with support of Colgate Palmolive has produced a mouthwash that selectively targets S mutans using antimicrobial peptides. You may remember I wrote in a previous column about Dr. Shi's licorice root extract lollipops that target and disable the bacteria responsible for tooth decay.Well, he's at it again, this time creating an antimicrobial mouthwash.

The mouthwash contains antimicrobial peptides that eliminate only the harmful S mutans. Twelve patients who rinsed just one time with the experimental mouthwash experienced a nearly complete elimination of the S. mutans bacteria over a four-day testing period. Based on the success of this clinical trial Dr. Shi's company has filed a drug application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, to begin more extensive clinical trials in March. If the FDA approves this new antimicrobial peptide it will be the first anti-dental decay drug since fluoride was licensed nearly 60 years ago.

The new concept of using targeted antimicrobial peptides may do more than just eliminate tooth decay. This work may be the beginning for developing additional target-specific antimicrobials to combat other diseases.

You have been fortunate to escape tooth decay, targeted antimicrobial peptides may soon eliminate tooth decay for those not as lucky.

Fluoridated Water and Fluoride Tablets?

2012-01-28T09:36:00.000Z

Fluoride Toxicity with Heather Gingerich

2012-01-28T09:19:00.001Z

Well worth listening to.

Fluoride Spill in Illinois

2012-01-28T09:14:00.001Z

Canada - Fluoride debate rages on

2012-01-27T08:41:00.000Z

Photo by Mike Maloney/London Community News
Paul Connett lets his frustrations show towards the continued use of fluoride in drinking water.

Fluoride debate rages on
By Sean Meyer/London Community News
Fluoridation of the city’s water supply is either a safe and inexpensive technique to improve people’s health or is an insulting way of eliminating personal freedom of choice.

Despite hours of “he said, she said” conversations, those were the two fundamental issues that came forward during a Civic Works Committee meeting at Centennial Hall that began on Wednesday evening (Jan. 25) and ran into the arly hours of Thursday morning.

An audience of more than 250 people turned out to listen to presentations from doctors, dentists, activists and ordinary citizens passionately supportive of their given side of the debate. Of that crowd, approximately three-quarters of those speaking were calling for an end to fluoridation, which started in London in 1967.

Ultimately, a meeting that wrapped up at almost 1 a.m. saw the committee vote to have staff pour over the details of the nearly six-hour meeting with the intention of bringing back a report in six weeks. Staff indicated it would be difficult to have a report ready for the committee’s next meeting, but felt comfortable with the one after that............

Why You Absolutely Must Personally Treat Your Own Water

2012-01-26T09:51:00.004Z

NaturalSociety
January 25, 2012
Mike Barrett

Why You Need to Personally Treat Your Own Water
Why do we need to worry about the water we are consuming each and every day? When referring to a group of people or someone acting different, the phrase “it must be in the water” is often used as a response. While this phrase is always used comically, you need to know that many of your health problems may indeed be result of what is in the water you are consuming every day.
Why You Absolutely Must Personally Treat Your Own Water
Many people are unaware of the vast amount of chemicals lurking in nearly all public water supplies. If you are using tap water to cook your food, or drinking it straight from the faucet, then you are exposing yourself to these substances. One of the most commonly noted, controversial substances in the water supply is fluoride.

It was only a few years ago that if you labeled fluoride as a dangerous substance, you would be laughed at and scorned. For years, a select minority of individuals were the only ones raising the awareness of this health concern. Their cries have been and continue to be met with dissonance, despite the fact that the public’s opinion on fluoride has changed much in just a short time. In fact, even the United States government has called for lower levels of water fluoridation following a study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, which found that increased fluoride consumption led to decreased IQ in children.
Fluoride is not the only thing in your water. Cocaine, various hormones birth control, pharmaceuticals, and other toxic pollutants are often found in the drinking water across the United States.

Other pollutants typically found in the drinking water:
Lead, which can enter the water supply through corrosive pipes or improper water treatment
Pathogens that cause disease and are especially crippling to those with weakened immune systems
By-products of chlorine treatment such as trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids, which have been linked to cancer and reproductive problems
Arsenic, which may cause cancer, serious skin problems, birth defects and reproductive problems
Radon, a carcinogen linked to lung cancer

Hopefully UK water may not be as bad.
Nice to be known as one of a select minority of individuals instead of the usual insulting terms used by those promoting fluoride

Ireland - High time to flush the fluoride from our water

2012-01-26T09:15:00.001Z

High time to flush the fluoride from our water
Wednesday January 25 2012
Dear Minister (CC: Editor, Drogheda Independent)
Reading through the report on water quality last week told me nothing new about our water system here in Ireland - the leaks, the amount of monies spent just to keep it going, the things people can do to conserve water in this country. It all makes for a fascinating read but it fails to mention one critical thing minister: how much do we spend on poisoning ourselves every year with fluoride?
We are one of if not the last country in the EU to stop this practice, even north of the border you can get clean drinking water. This has to stop minister ASAP.
Not only would it save people's health, it would save the exchequer money.
I myself have to travel anything up to 30km a week to get fresh drinking water and if I'm not able to do this we have to buy bottled water in our local shop because the water in the mains is not fit for human consumption. Indeed, this poison is leaking into every river and lake in Ireland.
The facts are proven about fluoride, all the studies have been done all over the world minister. The facts are too long here to lay down but if at any time you would like them I'd be only too happy to furnish you with them.
So. in closing minister, why, oh why on this green land of ours would you expect me or the tens of thousands like me pay for a poisoned water supply. It's just not going to happen.

Yours, Martin Farrell,
Drogheda.

FLUORIDE: WHAT Is It & WHY It's In Our Water

2012-01-24T09:02:00.001Z

SOUTHAMPTON: Party leaders vow to stand firm

2012-01-24T08:46:00.001Z

SOUTHAMPTON: Party leaders vow to stand firm
Fluoride 'bribe won't sway us
By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
SOUTHAMPTON'S political leaders have vowed not to be "bribed" into supporting fluoridation.
The leaders of all three main parties on the city council last night said that they would not back adding the controversial chemical to the tap water of 200,000 homes in a bid to gain extra cash from the Government.
Their pledges came after Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said that councils would be in line for bonuses if they improve measures such as dental health once they are handed powers taken from soon-to-be-axed health authorities.
Fears have been raised that the "health premium" incentive could make it more likely that councils will adopt practices such as fluoridation.
Stephen Peckham, chairman of campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation, said he believed that the move to hand local authorities public health responsibilities for the first time since the 1970s was a positive step.
However he added: "I am concerned that there will be a pressure on councils to use the money for fluoridation, but what I hope is that local authorities will be much more focused on dealing with the problem of tooth decay through developing community-based approaches which have been proven to work in other areas. "I would hope that councils would use the opportunity to do something that is effective, and although we should never underestimate those pushing for fluoridation, I think it is about time that the role is taken away from the dentists."
Southampton's council group leaders all said that they would not be looking to introduce fluoridation if it is not already in place by the time South Central Strategic Health Authority is disbanded in spring 2013......................

Shortened version due to copyright.

Dr. Dean Burk Fluoride causes cancer

2012-01-23T08:57:00.000Z

Public health improvement plan given £2bn funding

2012-01-23T08:32:00.001Z

Public health improvement plan given £2bn funding
Local authorities to get cash to promote breastfeeding and action on tooth decay
The Guardian, Monday 23 January 2012 Article history
Action to combat tooth decay will be funded under the 'health premium' incentive scheme. Photograph: Alamy
Councils will be able to get extra funding to encourage breast-feeding and combat child tooth decay as part of a government plan for local authorities to take a greater role in improving public health.

In a public health framework to be outlined on Monday by the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, local authorities will be alloted more than £2bn for the role. Councils that get the best results across 60 factors influencing health will be awarded extra funds under a so-called "health premium" incentive scheme.

Along with breast-feeding and tooth decay, they will be expected to tackle homelessness and the number of young people in the criminal justice system. A figure of £5.2bn will be spent on public health next year while the budget will increase in real terms each year after that, Lansley will say in a speech in London to the Faculty of Public Health.

"We all want to be healthy. No one wants an unhealthy existence," he will say. "And the job of the government – and my responsibility – is to help people live healthier lives. A failure to recognise that meant 2000-2010 was a decade in which public health was seen as relatively unimportant, something to be sidelined.

"Obesity rates from 2000-2010 rose from 21.2% to 26.1% so now over a quarter of adults are obese. Sexually transmitted infections, after the steep declines in the 80s to 90s, doubled in the subsequent decade.

"And health inequalities persist, with gaps in life expectancy of over a decade between people born in the richest areas and people born in the poorest."

Alternative Healing with Dr. Edward F. Group 1/2

2012-01-22T08:40:00.000Z

Blackburn dentist surgery named the best in the North West

2012-01-21T09:14:00.001Z

Blackburn dentist surgery named the best in the North West
Friday 20th January 2012 in
By Neil Docking »
A DENTIST is celebrating a step forward for tooth care in East Lancashire after his surgery was named the best in the North West.
East Lancashire is known to have some of the worst dental health in the UK, with exceptionally high rates of tooth decay......

How many more places have the worst dental health are there?

USA - More Statistics Show Fluoridation Fails New York State

2012-01-20T12:29:00.000Z

More Statistics Show Fluoridation Fails New York State
NYS Department of Health statistics reveal that, even when water is fluoridated, cavity-rates are extremely high in low-income third-graders. (2) For example:
85% of low-income third graders have tooth decay in Wayne County (74% fluoridated)
83% in Ontario County (61% fluoridated)
82% in Cayuga County (not fluoridated)
82% in Allegheny County (14% fluoridated)
81% in Livingston County (55% fluoridated)
67% in Schuyler County (not fluoridated)
58% in Nassau County (not fluoridated)
Fluoridation not only fails New York State but nationally children, the elderly and poor lack dental care. The General Accounting Office estimates that 6.5 million children aged 2 through 18 in Medicaid had untreated tooth decay in 2005. (3)
Oral health complications may be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.
Annually, 164 million work hours and 51 million school hours are lost due to dental problems, according to the Institute of Medicine. (4) Also, a 2008 study of the armed forces reveals 52% of new recruits had oral health problems needing urgent attention, reports the Pew Charitable Trust.
"The American economy is hurt by dentists' refusal to treat low-income Americans and by organized dentistry's lobbying to outlaw cheaper dental care by viable dental professionals, such as dental therapists," says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. "Fluoridation is a false concept that must be abandoned."

Australia - Decaying standards in kids' teeth

2012-01-19T08:29:00.000Z

Decaying standards in kids' teeth
CATHY SAUNDERS, The West Australian
January 19, 2012, 8:09 am
The link between infant diet, tooth health and obesity is under the microscope at a time when one in 10 children aged five have more than seven rotting teeth.
A joint Australian and US study by researchers will follow 1035 infants from birth to the age of three to examine the tie between early childhood feeding (including breastfeeding and food and beverage intake), obesity and dental health.
The study has been prompted partly by the fact that key messages for parents on how to ensure their children have healthy, white teeth are not sinking in.
Lead researcher Amit Arora, lecturer in oral health at Sydney University's Faculty of Dentistry, said the Child Dental Health Survey of Australia in 1996 found at least 40 per cent of six-year-olds had dental decay.
By the time the survey was repeated in 2002, the severity of the problem had increased and 45 per cent of five-year-olds had one or more decayed or missing teeth and 10 per cent had more than seven decayed teeth.
Children from disadvantaged areas had a higher incidence of decay. Moreover, a NSW child health survey in 2007 found about 40 per cent of five to six-year-olds had up to five decayed or missing teeth.
"That is a big burden when there are only 20 teeth in a baby's mouth," Dr Arora said.
It was assumed that breastfeeding was protective for an infant's teeth but the study, "Infant feeding including breastfeeding, and early childhood food and beverage intake: relationships with early childhood caries and obesity", would examine the assumption, he said.
To date, the infants have been followed from birth to 18 months. New funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council will enable them to continue to be followed for the next two years. They will undergo a dental examination at the age of three years, when they have all their baby teeth.
"The message that needs to go across to mums is that they should not be putting the baby to bed with a bottle of formula because the formula pools around the baby's teeth and that's when the decay process starts," Dr Arora said.
The study also showed most mothers started their infants on solid food by four to 4 1/2 months of age, beginning with baby cereals and canned fruits and vegetables and later introducing other foods.
"Further, some mums have introduced foods with sugar such as lollies and chocolates before the age of one year," he said.
They also fed them sugary drinks and cordials.
"So that message needs to go across to the mums too, not to give their babies sugary foods."
Some parents were also brushing their infant's teeth too late after the baby teeth erupted.
Dr Arora said diet and poor oral hygiene meant some children were having their teeth removed at a very young age. NSW statistics reveal the number of children under the age of five years admitted to hospital for tooth extraction because of dental decay rose by 90 per cent between 1989 and 2007. The annual cost of the hospital treatment alone in NSW is $3.5 million.

How long has NSW had water fluoridation?
Fluoride has been added to most water supplies in NSW, commencing with Yass in 1956.

In NSW alone there are more than 50 years of experience proving the effectiveness and safety of water fluoridation.

Most Australians have had water fluoridation for 25-50 years. NSW has one of the highest levels of water fluoridation (approximately 95% of the population has access to fluoridated water).

Shows fluoride in the water does not work. It does give children fluorosis and perhaps many other less than delightful side effects in the long term.

Daily Echo - Help needed over question put to panel over fluoride

2012-01-18T15:21:00.004Z

Help needed over question put to panel over fluoride
I WAS at the meeting when the decision to fluoridate our water supply was made.
During the meeting, a gentleman whose name I do not recall was seated on the left hand side of the table where the panel members were seated.
He was putting questions to one member of the panel regarding fluoride and I can remember that one of the questions was (or words to this effect) "Has anyone, anywhere in the world, sued the NHS for damage to their health caused by fluoridated water and
won?" The answer, hesitantly, was "Yes, but not very many".
I am not sure of this question word for word, but I am wondering if it would be possible for someone to somehow find out exactly how it was put to the member of the panel?
I should imagine that there would be a record of it somewhere. I have asked five other people who were at the meeting with me, also Anna and Stephen Peckham of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, but none of them recall this question being asked. Yet I am sure that it was.
DJ COVE (Mrs), Southampton.

If you have the time all 9 parts of the full video of when the decision was made is here

Remove Fluoride from your body / eating toothpaste / WATER POISONING CONSPIRACY / facts w chef

2012-01-17T09:31:00.000Z

West Midlands waking up to the danger of fluoride?

Bring your children to free dental drop-in sessions

2012-01-17T09:09:00.000Z

Published on Monday 16 January 2012 15:10
Children and families are encouraged to attend free Dental Drop-in sessions at Sure Start Children’s Centres in Milton Keynes.
The drop-in sessions give the opportunity of a free dental check-up for children, who do not currently have an NHS dentist, and give their parents the chance of receiving general oral health advice and a chat with an NHS Dentist.

Mel Foxall from the Oral Health Promotion Team, said: “Our dental drop-in sessions at the Children’s Centres are a great way of helping families to develop good oral health for their children from an early age. I look forward to welcoming parents and their children to our sessions.”

Following an assessment, the dentist will apply fluoride varnish to the child’s teeth (in line with Department of Health recommendations). Fluoride varnish helps to prevent tooth decay and is only applied following parental consent. After their check-up, children are given a toothbrush pack and advice on how to maintain good oral health. Parents who attend the sessions will also be given up-to-date details of dentists who are currently able to take on new NHS patients.

Top tips for maintaining good oral health include, reducing the amount of sugar that you eat, keep sugary foods and drinks to mealtimes only, brush your teeth for two to three minutes, twice a day, with fluoride toothpaste and have your mouth checked regularly by your dentist.

Daily Echo Letters

2012-01-16T08:34:00.001Z

The dangers of chemicals in water
Mr A K Roberts' letter "Let's talk fair about issue of fluoridation" (Letters, January 6.), compared adding the chemical fluoride to water with water chlorination.
This is not a fair comparison as chlorine is used to treat the water and make it safe to drink by killing harmful bacteria. But fluoride does not make the water safe to drink, it is used to treat people and bring about changes in the human body! A very different thing.
He wrote that fluoride is only added to tap water in small amounts, but chemicals can be powerful in tiny doses. For instance, just one part per billion of arsenic in water is estimated to
cause cancer in one in every 5,000 people. At only 50 parts per billion arsenic causes cancer in one in every 100 people. Source: National Resources Defense Council, New York.
Mr. Roberts said that nobody has yet said that fluoridation can kill anybody. He has not done his homework. In Hopper Bay, Alaska, one man died and 260 people were made ill after a fluoride overdose in tap water in May 1992. In July 1993 three kidney patients died after a fluoride overdose in Chicago, Illinois, USA. Visit fluoridealert.org/ accidents.htm.
A WILLS, Ruislip, Middlesex.
• JOHN Pope (In My View, January 5) draws attention to the way in which the SHA in its pursuit of compulsory fluoridation was careful to follow the "letter of the law".
In practice, that included holding a consultation which was nothing of the kind, the very consultation document issued being significantly defective and deliberately misleading. The authority was also allowed to send out prepaid postcards inviting the public to agree with their intentions, not to express their opinion of them.
It is instructive to note that when we ask why these aspects of the case were given scant attention we get no reply.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED.

Study Shows Infants Are Affected by Fluoride

2012-01-15T08:41:00.002Z

Study Shows Infants Are Affected by Fluoride
Infant formula mixed with fluoridated water has been shown to have adverse effects on an infant's dental health.
One study, published in The Journal of the American Dental Association, has found that even young infants are being affected by dental fluorosis. Researchers took into account the dental health of infants ages three to nine months, as well as children between the ages of 16 and 36 months. The study focused on infants and toddlers that were fed infant formula and other beverages mixed with fluoridated water.

The study concluded that, “Greater fluoride intakes from reconstituted powdered formulas (when participants were aged 3–9 months) and other water-added beverages (when participants were aged 3–9 months) increased fluorosis risk, as did higher dentifrice intake by participants when aged 16 to 36 months.” (Levy, Broffitt, and et al 1190-1201)...

Is Fluoride Dangerous? Natural Dentist Dr Layton Answers

2012-01-14T09:49:00.002Z

Healthy, Green Friendly Mouthwashes

2012-01-14T09:46:00.000Z

Healthy, Green Friendly Mouthwashes
By EarthTalk
Jan 13, 2012 - 5:03:15 PM
HealthNewsDigest.com) - Many mainstream mouthwashes contain ingredients that you definitely don’t want to swallow, or even put down the drain. According to the Environmental Health Association of Nova Scotia’s (EHANS’s) “Guide to Less Toxic Products”—a free online resource designed to help consumers choose healthier, greener everyday products—conventional mouthwash is often alcohol-based, with an alcohol content ranging from 18-26 percent. “Products with alcohol can contribute to cancers of the mouth, tongue and throat when used regularly,” the guide reports, adding that a 2009 review in the Dental Journal of Australia confirmed the link between alcohol-based mouthwashes and an increased risk of oral cancers.

And you might want to avoid mouthwashes with fluoride (aka sodium fluoride). While fluoride may help fight cavities, ingesting too much of it has been linked to neurological problems and could be a cancer trigger as well. Common mouthwash sweeteners have also been linked to health problems: Saccharin is a suspected carcinogen while sucralose may trigger migraines. Synthetic colors can also be troublesome.

Some brands contain formaldehyde (aka quanternium-15). According to the National Cancer Institute, overexposure to formaldehyde can cause a burning sensation in the eyes, nose and throat as well as coughing, wheezing, nausea and skin irritation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers formaldehyde a “probable human carcinogen” and research has shown an association between long term workplace exposure and several specific cancers, including leukemia. Few of us are exposed to as much formaldehyde as, say, morticians, but does that mean its okay to swish it around in our mouths every day?

Other problematic ingredients in many conventional mouthwashes include sodium lauryl sulfate, polysorbate, cetylpyridinium chloride and benzalkonium chloride, all which have been shown to be toxic to organisms in the aquatic environments where these chemicals end up after we spit them out.......

Daily Echo - Letters

2012-01-14T09:16:00.000Z

Strong basis for opposition to fluoridation
MR Roberts (Echo, January 6) characterises these opposed to water fluoridation as little more than conspiracy theorists who cannot recognise what he calls the "benefits' of fluoridation.
Yet in 2007, three of the UK's leading scientists - Professors Cheng, Chalmers and Sheldon -wrote an article for the British Medical Journal highlighting the weakness of the evidence on water fluoridation.
They concluded that it is not possible, based on existing research, to say fluoridation is either safe or effective. Since 2007, many more studies have been published raising concerns about the harms of water fluoridation, particularly excess consumption of fluoride
by babies and young children. Hampshire Against Fluoridation has always argued that there are strong scientific and ethical grounds for opposing water fluoridation. Our Scientific Advisory Panel includes a professor of oxicology, a doctor of dentistry, a professor of dentistry, a doctor of biology and a medical doctor. We know that there are safer and more effective alternatives to water fluoridation,
Mr Roberts may wish to acquaint himself with the hundreds of scientific papers that report the negative effects of water fluoridation rather than attack those people who raise objections to the proposed scheme here in Southampton.

Fluoride Opponents are well informed.
I never cease to be amazed by people who seek to denigrate the intelligence and integrity of those of us who oppose water fluoridation such a one is Mr A K Roberts (Letters, January 6).
Presumably Mr Roberts read the letters printed in the Echo about fluoridation, the vast majority of which were well informed and the writers clearly not "obsessed with rumours and conspiracy theories".
They had taken the trouble to think outside of the box of antiquated medical dogma (see the report of the Safety of Water Fluoridation Questioned by EU Scientific Commission who described fluoridation as "a crude and rather ineffective form of systemic fluoride treatment to prevent dental caries without a detectable threshold for dental and bone damage").
He has clearly not made himself familiar with the experience of countries, such as the US, Australia and Eire where water has been fluoridated for decades and which are now deploring the state of children's teeth in areas where the costs of dental treatment are beyond parental means.
In some of these countries over 40 per cent of children suffer dental fluorosis (a visible sign the child has been overdosed/poisoned by fluoride). It will take a lifetime of expensive treatment to cover up the damage in the worst cases.
I wonder if he has taken the trouble to mull over the reasons given by other European governments when they decided not to fluoridate their water? They are very revealing!
Now to consider his points;
• My dictionary defines medicine as any drug or remedy for use in treating, preventing or alleviating the symptoms of disease. Fluoride is supposed to prevent caries so, if it is added to the public water supply which everyone is obliged to drink it becomes mass medication. Note also that hexafluorosilicic acid (the fluoride to be used in the water) is a classified poison and has no medical licence.
• We know that chlorine was used as a war weapon and are not thrilled to have it in our water but, until another practical method of preventing cholera, typhoid, dysentery, etc is discovered, it has to be tolerated. I understand a carbon filter can remove it, as can boiling the water or standing it in a refrigerator. These methods are ineffective for fluoride.
• Mr Roberts' percentages for other chemicals found in water are somewhat convoluted but, to the best of my belief, none are added deliberately and some are actually beneficial to health.
• Proven benefits? There is a great paucity of any scientific research into the benefits or harms of fluoride at low concentrations over a long period but a great deal is known about the devastating health effects of chronic poisoning. People who are to be exposed to fluoridated water over periods of ten, 20,30 years are likely to suffer similar conditions over a long period but no proper research has been done to measure tooth and bone damage, thyroid damage, kidney damage, brain damage or osteosarcoma in boys.
MRS A RICHARDS, Hayling Island.

Daily Echo letter

2012-01-13T08:48:00.001Z

Why would anyone want fluoridation?
I WOULD like to comment on the letter titled "Let's talk fair about issue of fluoridation", Daily Echo January 6 by Mr A K Roberts of Romsey.
1. Mr Roberts states that the term mass medication is not justified regarding fluoridation and that chlorine-based products added cause more serious disease. Well, we all know the chlorine isn't particularly good for us, but that is in our water to help kill any bugs. Also, why should we have fluoride added as well to help make our water even more toxic to drink?
2. He also says that there is intense focus on the possible side effects of fluoridation and a blind eye turned to the basic proven benefits. There is such a lot of evidence against fluoridation, and really very little for it. There are no benefits to putting it into our water supply.
3. Another comment was that the SHA approved fluoridation after careful expert examination, but most of them are not experts.
4. Also he states that we protesters have fallen for the popular conspiracy theory syndrome that the SHA are buying poison from evil manufacturers who can't dispose of it legally and adding it to our water. Well, conspiracies do happen, and in the case of fluoridation we protesters have told people the truth. The part Mr Roberts got right is that the SHA are buying a poison and dumping it into our water supply. Nobody has the right to put a toxic waste into our lifeline.
5. Another comment was that every letter we have written has a negative slant on fluoridation. Well, the answer to that is when we are trying to warn people about the bad effects of fluoride we all feel that without it added we will all benefit from drinking better quality water, I would say that was quite positive.
6. So, Mr Roberts, can you please answer one question: Why would anyone want a toxic chemical added to their water, that none of us will be able to boil out if we wanted to, that toxic chemical being fluoride? Nobody with any common sense can justify it in any way.
Most people of Southampton and surrounding areas do not want this mad scheme.
MRS K KINCHINGTON, Southampton.

Echo - letters

2012-01-12T08:39:00.000Z

SOAPBOX: Fluoride in tap water
Incensed' at SHA pushing on with fluoridation
I REFER to your letter (January 4) headed "Poison allowed to invade our lives" and totally concur with the sentiments expressed.
I worry constantly and am incensed that the SHA shelters behind the powers handed to them and with, unbelievable contempt, deny the stated basic rights of the majority to enjoy a
water supply unpolluted by toxins.
I am also disappointed and angry that Southern Water appears to have simply "rolled over" and in response to my letter simply saying that they are bound by law and regulations to follow SHA instructions.
It is like an echo from the past
- "We only did what we were told..."
But perhaps those members of the SHA who cynically endorsed this vile scheme don't live within the designated area? Shame on them and those in power and authority who are letting them get away with it.
MAUREEN DARNELL, Southampton.

Adding fluoride to our water is 'obsolete1
LIKE Mr A Roberts (Letters, January 6), I top have concerns over fair play with regard to water fluoridation.
I am not a conspiracy theorist but am opposed to fluoridation for a number of very valid reasons.
Firstly, there is no high-quality evidence to support the practice. This is a fact and not an opinion. The "proven benefits" referred to by Mr Roberts are not backed up by scientific evidence.
The York Review found a surprising lack of good evidence to support claims made by proponents of fluoridation.
Hexafluorosilicic acid is, in fact, industrial grade fluoride and people are right to be concerned about this. I for one do not want to drink it.
Even more worrying, there are a number of studies published in quality, peer reviewed journals indicating that some infants will exceed recommended levels if consuming formula milk made up with fluoridated water.
Fluorosis - mottling of the teeth as a result of too much fluoride - is a growing problem in fluoridated countries which is why so many places have lowered the levels of fluoride permitted in water or abandoned this antiquated practice completely.
Scotland, for example, has helped tackle the problem of poor dental health in children by using an effective, targeted approach which involves varnishes and educational
interventions at the nursery stage.
I may not have an A level in chemistry but I know that it is not good practice to add fluoride to drinking water. I live in the area, I pay for my water, I have researched the evidence, attended every consultation question and answer event and Hampshire County Council's scrutiny process and my opinion is as valid as anyone else's.
It is a disgrace that unelected SHA board members feel they have the right to force this scheme upon local people.
I prefer to place my trust in world-renowned scientists such as Nobel Prize winner Dr Arvid Carlsson who called the practice of water fluoridation "obsolete".
ANNA PECKHAM, Southampton.

House of Lords

2012-01-11T09:40:00.000Z

Fluoridation
Questions
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 7 February (WA 18-19) and 24 November (WA 275), (1) whether they share the concerns about dental fluorosis that led the Republic of Ireland to lower the concentration of added fluoride in mains water to 0.7 parts per million in 2007, and (2) what relevance the use of more fluoride supplements by the population in the United States has to the incidence of dental fluorosis in the United Kingdom.[HL14261]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): We are not aware of any evidence from the Republic of Ireland to show that levels of dental fluorosis were unacceptable when water supplies were fluoridated at 1 part per million. We cannot see any relevance between the use of more fluoride supplements by the population in the United States and the incidence of dental fluorosis in the United Kingdom. We are awaiting publication of a research study into the prevalence and aesthetic acceptability of dental fluorosis before considering whether the use of a 1 part per million concentration here should be reviewed.

Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 17 October (WA 14), 1 November (WA 233-4) and 24 November (WA 275-6) concerning medicinal products, what is their authority for the view that fluoride when added to mains water with the intention of protecting teeth does not constitute a medical treatment. [HL14262]

Earl Howe: The authority for our judgment is the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency's (MHRA) view that fluoride added to drinking water is not a medical product. We consider that, where there is no physical contact, surgical or otherwise, made with the patient, the critical factor in judging whether a medical treatment is occurring is whether a medical product as defined by the MHRA is involved.

10 Jan 2012 : Column WA34

Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 23 May (WA 378-9), whether they intend to commission a larger study, with power to detect small effects, to develop further the analyses from the first report of the Newcastle study into the bioavailability of fluoride in water in 2004, which found a difference in absorption in plasma fluoride between naturally and artificially fluoridated water.[HL14263]

Earl Howe: The department has no current plans to commission a further study on the bioavailability of fluoride in drinking water. The department's National Institute for Health Research welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including water fluoridation. These applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the scientific quality of the proposals made.

Echo - letter

2012-01-11T09:00:00.001Z

Anti-fluoride lobby will not be silenced
MR A K Roberts (Letters, January 6) has a poor opinion of anybody who is against fluoridation.
In November 2009 he wrote to the Echo claiming we were zealots. I wrote back then asking if AK Roberts was aware that his insignificant drop of fluoride can cause mottling of the teeth and that dentists charge thousands of pounds to hide with veneers? Would he like his children to suffer that because a few families do not teach their young to clean their teeth or eat sensibly? He mentions chlorine but that is there to treat the water.
It too has its dangers, it's known to cause colon cancer but if you are aware of that and there is colon cancer in your family you can either buy a simple filter, let the water stand or boil it. Fluoride is very different. Is he aware that tonnes of Hexafluorosilicic acid
contaminated with two per cent of toxic metals and trace amounts of radioactive isotopes are used to fluoridate water.
As for the Echo not publishing pro fluoridation letters perhaps they don't get many. Even some of the people connected with the PCT exposed to one-sided propaganda have expressed their support for us. There are many extremely qualified professors who are adamantly opposed to fluoridation as well as concerned citizens who attended consultation meetings.
Hampshire County Council set up a committee to thoroughly examine the evidence and they too voted against supporting the Strategic Health Authority.
I doubt if any of this will change your mind Mr Roberts but the public are waking up and more and more communities are rejecting fluoridation.
BILL EDMUNDS, Cadnam.

Debate: Is fluoridation of our water acceptable?

2012-01-10T12:32:00.001Z

Debate for and against fluoridation

Debate: Is fluoridation of our water acceptable?
Author: Alisdair McKendrick, Elizabeth McDonagh

Water Fluoridation is insane here's the proof!

2012-01-10T09:07:00.000Z

ABCNEWS - Too Much Fluoride in Water - Fluorosis Ruining Teeth and Other Health

2012-01-09T08:42:00.000Z

You might not have seen it.

Echo - letter

2012-01-09T08:34:00.001Z

Australia - A system in decay Deborah Cole

2012-01-08T08:53:00.001Z

A system in decay Deborah Cole
January 8, 2012
Australia is in desperate need of a national dental health scheme, writes Deborah Cole.

HERE'S what we know for sure: poor dental health is costing the Australian economy up to $2 billion a year. Dental decay is connected to major chronic illnesses including cardiovascular disease, diabetes and dementia. Diseases of the mouth are a key marker of social disparity and yet almost all oral diseases are largely preventable.

A report recently published by the Brotherhood of St Lawrence, End the Decay: The cost of poor dental health and what should be done about it, found that poor dental health is costing the Australian economy between $1.3 billion and $2 billion a year in direct and indirect costs, including avoidable hospital admissions, lost productivity and induced illnesses such as periodontal-related coronary heart disease.

Yet dental care constitutes only 6 per cent of national health spending, and a large amount of that spending is out-of-pocket expense by the individual.

Advertisement: Story continues below It's time to act. We need to introduce a universal dental scheme so that everyone who needs to see the dentist for basic healthcare can.

Research shows that in the past two years, almost 2 million Australians who needed dental care were unable to get treatment because they couldn't afford it.

So it's no surprise that children from low socio-economic areas have 70 per cent more dental decay than children whose parents are well off. Adults on low incomes are 60 times more likely to have no teeth than prosperous people.

Visiting the dentist can be an expensive exercise. Many Australians cannot afford to see a private dentist and, when they try to access public dental services, they are faced with long waiting lists - a national average of more than two years. As a result, poor dental health has reached epidemic proportions. Our children and those experiencing financial hardship are suffering the most.

In November, I met the National Advisory Council on Dental Health to advocate a universal dental scheme.

In the lead-up to my meeting, I collected stories from everyday Australians who are suffering from poor dental health. Some of the people who shared their stories were under the age of 35 and had none of their natural teeth left. That simply isn't good enough.

We need a system that helps people get the care they need when they need it. A system that encourages education, prevention and early intervention of oral disease. A system that will enable Australians to access dental care before their oral health becomes so bad that their only option is to have their teeth extracted.

Dental health is a vital component of general health and wellbeing. A 2010 study found that a person who has fewer than 10 of their natural teeth left is seven times more likely to die of coronary disease than someone with more than 25 of their own teeth. A report, reviewing almost 100 publications, released by Dental Health Services Victoria last month, explains how poor oral health has also been linked to diabetes, respiratory diseases, stroke, kidney diseases, dementia and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

In addition to its links to chronic diseases, dental health has a huge impact on people's everyday lives. Poor dental health affects people's ability to eat, speak, socialise and find work. Many Australians who have lost some or all of their natural teeth are too embarrassed to leave their homes for fear of ridicule and judgment.....

Fluoridated Australia.

USA - Healthy mouth, economy linked

2012-01-07T09:10:00.000Z

While many Coloradans focus on their 2012 New Year's resolutions, community and public health leaders across the state are pledging to improve the oral health of all Coloradans.

Diseases of the mouth get little attention compared to the many other medical issues, but these diseases directly impact the economic health of our state. In 2010, Americans spent an estimated $108 billion on dental services. Oral diseases, pain and infections account for 164 million lost work hours nationally and about 7.8 million lost school hours in Colorado......

Despite decades of water fluoridation: NYSCOF

Correction to Echo letter

2012-01-06T16:42:00.000Z

Daily Echo - letter

2012-01-06T08:39:00.001Z

Let's talk fair about issue of fluoridation
ALTHOUGH I live outside the proposed fluoridation area, I do have concerns about fair play. It seems that the majority of correspondents who write about fluoridation have become obsessed with rumours and conspiracy theories, and should think more carefully about the following:
1) Use of the term mass medication is not justified from my dictionary definition of medicine, since fluoridation is not intended to cure, but only help prevent dental disease. It is of course an effective rabble rousing term. Logically, these opponents of fluoridation should also oppose chlorine-based products added to prevent admittedly more serious disease. Is this what they want?
2) After fluoridation, the water will still be 99.9999 per cent free of fluoride, instead of 99.99998 per cent. There are many salts causing temporary and permanent
hardness that are several hundred times this level - so much for the 'pure' water that some idealists believe we have at present, and are occasionally asked to boil before drinking.
3) There is intense focus on the
possible side effects of fluoridation, and a blind eye turned to the basic proven benefits.
4) The toxic nature of hexafluorosilicic acid is trumpeted, but so is chlorine (a first world war poison gas) and common salt for that matter. It's all in the dilution.
5) The SHA were unanimous in approving fluoridation after careful expert examination. How many of these opponents have even got A-level chemistry?
6) They have fallen for the popular conspiracy theory syndrome, which has created the 'big brother' SHA buying poison from evil manufacturers who can't dispose of it legally, and adding it to our pure water supply.
Shades of Batman and the Penguin! In fact, most hexafluorosilicic acid is used in the manufacture of aluminium.
7) It would be more fitting of the Echo to rename their 'Great Fluoride Debate' the Great Anti-Fluoride campaign.
Every letter and topic arising with a negative slant on fluoridation is given headline status. Even the entirely reasonable proposal to monitor the effect on dental health led to the spin headline that residents were being used as guinea pigs.
8) The use of general anaesthetic on children to remove teeth can result in fatalities, but nobody has yet claimed that fluoridation can kill anybody. Give them time.
Mr A K Roberts

UK - Daily Echo - In My View - By John Pope

2012-01-05T08:34:00.001Z

Click to see larger image

Daily Echo letter

2012-01-04T08:43:00.001Z

Poison allowed to invade our lives
FLOURIDE is a chemical, a poison, a form of drug.
Why is it no doctor or consultant in the land can force us to take drugs of any kind without our consent yet the uneducated in medical terms can force us to?
It is in our food, | cooking, drinks hot or cold, washing up, when we wash our hair, baths, showers, even on the veg we grow, etc.
How is this possible?
Just to nannystate a minority of parents who cannot be bothered to teach their children to look after their teeth once again the majoity of us have to pander to these people and be subjected to being force fed a drug we do not need.
Think about it everyone - poison in everything we do in life - and fight to get it stopped and not let future tragedies occur in the future, as with thalidomide.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED.

New Study on Fluoride Shows No Benefits and Major Safety Issues Posted

2012-01-03T13:01:00.002Z

New Study on Fluoride Shows No Benefits and Major Safety Issues
Posted By Dr. Mercola | January 03 2012
By Dr. Mercola
Fluoride, a neurotoxin that has been linked to reduced IQ, impaired neurobehavioral development and brain damage, among many other serious health problems, is sometimes prescribed in supplement form to children ages 6 months to 16 years who live in areas that have non-fluoridated drinking water.

The rationale, which is heavily promoted by government agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – or rather its Oral Health Division

Bodies like the American Dental Association (ADA), is that this toxic agent helps reduce cavities – and those children who are "unfortunate" enough NOT to have the poison forced upon them in their drinking water should get their daily dose elsewhere (i.e. in supplement form).

These recommendations now defy rational logic and common sense on two fronts:

1) even promoters of fluoridation now admit that fluoride's predominant action is on the surface of the tooth and not from inside the body (CDC, 1999) and

2) there are more than 100 published studies illustrating fluoride's harm to the brain, plus 25 published studies directly linking fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children! In other words, it doesn't do much (if any) good to swallow fluoride and doing so could be doing significant harm.

Adding insult to injury, new research has further revealed that ingesting fluoride in supplement form does not reduce cavities in primary teeth – and may in fact cause harm......

Wales - Sweet tooth can leave a sour taste by proving to be a dental disaster

2012-01-02T08:48:00.002Z

by Our Correspondent, Western MailJan 2 2012
Alison Lowe explains how we can prevent falling victim to the most common disease in Western society – dental caries
ASK anybody what they think the most common disease in Western society is and I bet the last thing they’d come up with would be dental caries.
But sadly tooth decay is a very significant problem.
More than 40% of children in the UK have caries in both their baby and adult teeth; in socially deprived communities as many as one in three children under five have had teeth extracted because of decay.
All this would be easy to understand if we were still in the 1970s when babies were weaned on rose hip syrup, which was a recipe for dental disaster.
But with our ever-increasing knowledge of the devastating effect sugar can have on teeth there is really no excuse.
Nonetheless, for many children breakfast still consists of a fizzy drink and jam sandwich – a sad reflection of society’s continuing failure to protect children from the painful and scaring ravages of caries which often results in pain, sepsis and emergency care.
There are lots of preventive measures in place, including information for parents – the Infant and Toddler Forum and the British Dental Health Foundation are working hard to raise awareness about caries and have produced a factsheet providing comprehensive advice on how to care for children’s teeth.
As a nation, we have a very sweet tooth – an average of £1.3bn is spent on sweets and sugary snacks each month.
Having consumed something sweet, bacteria in the mouth produces acid which attacks the tooth’s enamel.
After about 20 minutes the body’s protective mechanism kicks in and saliva neutralises the acid.
The problem with eating sweet things continually is that the teeth are under constant attack.
The only thing that will really prevent decay is not putting sugary things into your mouth in the first place. If you want to avoid the tooth fairy, “sweetie days” are a good idea.
Simply eat your sweets all at once on a specific day of the week.
If you like to sprinkle sugar on your cereal, why not try Xylitol instead? It has the same sweet taste and is considered to be much healthier than many sweeteners.
Asthmatics are nearly three times more at risk of developing dental decay than the rest of the population, maybe because they produce less saliva, which we need to neutralise the plaque acid that eats into enamel.
By maintaining a rigorous dental regime and visiting your dentist regularly, it is possible to have well controlled asthma and healthy teeth.
Fluoridated water is the most cost-effective way of reducing tooth decay.
The adjustment of fluoride levels in the drinking water in Australia, Ireland and the US has been hailed as a public health triumph.
Anti-fluoridation lobbyists argue we shouldn’t add fluoride (which is, of course, a chemical) into our water supplies unnecessarily and the Green Party has said there are “too many significant questions” over the effectiveness and risks of fluoride for it to be considered safe.
The last place in Wales to have fluoridated water was Anglesey – within five years of it being stopped in 1991 there was a 68% rise in tooth decay in children.
In the absence of fluoridated water, there is always toothpaste. The majority on sale in the UK contain fluoride and although it is inevitable that a small amount of toothpaste will be ingested every time we brush, there is no evidence to suggest that this will have a detrimental effect on our health.
In order for toothpaste to be effective you need to brush with it.
Inconsistent brushing is a major cause of tooth decay but a recent survey for Philips Oral Healthcare found many parents are letting their children off brushing simply because they’re too rushed or stressed.

Alison Lowe is an award-winning dental hygienist who is based in Cardiff

Fluoridation in America is not such a success and Scotland is vastly improving children's teeth without adding the contaminated waste product they use to put in the water.
I don't trust the Anglesey stats, Southampton where fluoridation would have started two years a go without our opposition has far more dentists available for NHS treatment than two years a go. It would have proved in the future that dental health was vastly improved
here just as there are more dentists per population in the fluoridated West Midlands.

From F.A.N. How I ended up fighting fluoridation.

2012-01-01T08:36:00.001Z

How I ended up fighting fluoridation.
By Chris Neurath
I was raised by my parents to believe fluoride and fluoridation were wonderful, progressive things. Before fluoridated toothpaste was available, and before our tap water was fluoridated, my father brought home bottles of fluoride drops from the pharmacy. My brothers and I were supposed to put it in orange juice every day. I remember wondering why we were given something from a bottle with a huge skull and crossbones on it. I don't remember my parent's explanations, but I'm sure I trusted them on this.

In hindsight, I'm glad I didn't like orange juice so I only occasionally took the fluoride. I had no cavities growing up, in contrast to the mouthfuls of both parents, and I always attributed this to the fluoride drops. Our family dentist encouraged this belief. Little did I know that in my generation we all had fewer cavities than our parents, irregardless of whether we ingested fluoride.

It wasn't until sometime in my 30s that I ever came across anyone who openly questioned fluoridation. He was a genial older man who suddenly became argumentative when the subject somehow arose and I claimed my lack of cavities was living proof that fluoride worked. I dismissed him as a crank. Not until years later did I realize I might have been the uninformed person.

When I first met Paul and Ellen Connett they were working on trash incinerators, not fluoride. I worked on this and several other environmental issues for many years with them. Paul and Ellen are both naturally talented at seeing through the lies and spin that poison so many environmental health issues. I was trained as a scientist, but it took me a while to realize how much science gets twisted when a vested interest is at stake. But even with my developing suspicion of manipulated science, I was stunned to read an investigative article on the dark history of fluoridation, first published by the Connetts in their tiny circulation environmental newsletter. The Christian Science Monitor had cancelled the story, and no mainstream media would touch it, so the authors Chris Bryson and Joel Griffiths gave it to the Connetts.

The Bryson/Griffith article tied the early promotion of fluoridation to promotion of atomic weapons. One memorable personal incident from my youth was probably what kept me from dismissing this as outrageous "conspiracy theory".

Back in high school, we got a reprieve from my chemistry class one day, to see a special presentation by a traveling "lecturer" from the Atomic Energy Commission, given to the entire school. He started out by tossing three whiffle balls into the audience, one of which chanced to go straight to me. He then asked the catchers of the balls to join him on stage. Once there, he announced that one of the balls was radioactive, whereupon the kid next to me dropped his like a hot potato. Being by nature more reserved, I just stood there waiting to find out what would happen next. The presenter singled me out to stay on stage as a "volunteer". He then offered a bottle of Coca-cola and asked me to drink some, after which he announced it had been spiked with radioactive iodine. He held his impressive looking Geiger counter at my neck, near my thyroid, and the clicking went crazy. This entire "stunt" was framed to demonstrate how harmless radiation really was. Although I was not at all happy with what went on, I came away, as did most of the kids in the audience, assuming that radiation really was something that could be "fun" to play with, and not that threatening.

That subliminal message stuck with me for years ... until I chanced to run into the brainiest kid from my high school, who was then studying physics at MIT. Somehow that presentation on atomic energy came up and he said he had been asked to help the presenter behind the scenes ... and he knew what had really gone on. The stunts with radioactivity were all faked. The presenter's Geiger counter had a tiny radioactive collar which he could slip back and forth over the detector to make it click at will. There was no radioactive whiffle ball, and no radioactive Coke. I was stunned to realize our government lies - intentionally - to deceive school children. In particular, about the safety of radiation and atomic energy.

The almost unbelievable revelations in the Bryson/Griffith article finally got me to seriously question my previous faith in fluoridation. But I can understand why most Americans still believe what they were told time and again as children ... that fluoridation is wonderful and anyone who questions it is crazy. For several more years I was still wary of joining the Connett's campaign on fluoridation. But then I started delving into the science itself.

The first dip I took was when Paul asked me to review the seminal reports of the first fluoridation "community trials" in the US, from the 1940s. I couldn't believe the shoddiness of these studies. They are truly "junk science".

But I was still wary of getting involved in the issue. Then Paul asked me to look into some of the cancer studies. Having investigated other environmental causes of cancer I had a special interest in this field, so I accepted. The Yiamouyiannis/Burk work was intriguing, but not fully convincing to me. Then a member of the National Research Council (NRC) committee reviewing fluoride suggested I look at a much more recent case-control study on fluoride and bone cancer by Kitty Gelberg. I started wading through the 400 page dissertation and the published paper, and realized there were gross errors in both. For example, Gelberg had somehow confused the males with the females! She had never caught this error and neither had the peer reviewers or any readers. In several key tables, she confused cases with controls, which is an even more fundamental error than switching males with females. There were other errors and many questionable interpretations. Gelberg concluded there was no link between fluoride and osteosarcoma, but buried in her study I saw evidence that suggested otherwise. I called Gelberg to try to straighten out the errors and to ask about some of the interpretations. It was the first she had ever heard about the possibility of errors in the 10 years since her work had been published. After grudgingly admitting the errors, she broke off any communication. My respect for "fluoridation science" dropped to a new low. Gelberg works as an epidemiologist for the New York State Department of Health, which happens to be one of the leading promoters of fluoridation in the US. It was a disappointing revelation that public servants can stonewall and ignore inquiries from the public.

About the same time as this Gelberg experience, in 2005, FAN was tipped off to the existence of Elise Bassin's Harvard doctoral dissertation on fluoride and osteosarcoma. This study had been completed four years previously but had been so effectively buried that it was unknown even to the expert NRC panel doing an exhaustive review of fluoride toxicology. Michael Connett went to Harvard to read the only "public" copy available anywhere, but was only allowed to photocopy a limited portion of it. His initial impression was this was a very important study. I made an appointment to see it myself. I was stunned by what I read. Bassin's high quality study had found a very strong link between fluoride exposure during a certain period of life (6th - to 8th years), and later developing osteosarcoma. I was equally shocked by the fact that this work had been hidden from the public for four years while Bassin's faculty advisor, Chester Douglass, who ran the study, went around the world lying to people, saying his research had found no link between fluoride and osteosarcoma.

Reading the Bassin dissertation, deep in the bowels of Harvard's Medical Library, was the turning point for me on fluoride. Here was clear evidence that the fluoride added to 2/3rds of American's drinking water was causing a frequently fatal form of cancer. This study isn't enough to "prove" fluoride causes cancer, but the fact that it had been hidden from the public and scientific community oof that, in Chris Bryson's words: "fluoride science is tobacco science".

With pressure from FAN, and with the Environmental Working Group leading the demand for an investigation of the cover-up of the Bassin study, the Bassin study was eventually brought to the world's attention ... and has created a stir ever since. The NRC final report notes it as a crucial piece of evidence on the question of carcinogenicity. Later, Bassin finally published her work in a prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal, with three respected Harvard co-authors.

But the opening salvo of the "tobacco science" attack on Bassin's work appeared on the same day her paper was published, in the same journal! Douglass wrote a "letter to the editor" where he questions the repeatability of Bassin's findings, and announces he is analyzing additional data sets from his study and believes they will not confirm her findings. Douglass says he will publish his results within months. His letter is full of omissions and misleading claims, but will be used for the next five years to dismiss Bassin's paper. In those five years, Douglass kept promising to publish his results for all to see, but never did ... until this year (Kim et al 2011). The publication of what Douglass suggests is the "last word" on fluoride and osteosarcoma, took him nearly 20 years! The study was originally scheduled to be completed in about 5 years.

And what does his "final word" paper actually contain? No evidence able to refute Bassin's study, because Douglass never even addresses the key evidence in Bassin's study (i.e. the critical period when children were exposed` - their 6th to 8th years). Douglass' study was actually much smaller than Bassin's, especially in the age group of 0-20 years. Douglass' paper even states that he had insufficient number of subjects in this age range to derive any conclusions.

Douglass also ended up with a control group that was much older and had a much different sex ratio, than his case group. Such drastic differences mean his entire study is of questionable validity. He is essentially comparing apples to oranges.

Douglass claims his method of estimating fluoride exposure is superior to Bassin's. Douglass used bone fluoride levels, whereas Bassin used a careful history of drinking water and other fluoride sources. Douglass' method using bone fluoride is incapable of pinpointing when a child was exposed to fluoride, whereas Bassin's is the best available method for timing exposure. The timing of exposure turned out to be the critical risk factor in Bassin's study. Douglass' study can not even address this key factor.

Douglass ignored a large portion of his data from a control group of people who did not have any cancer. Instead, he looked only at a control comparison group comprised of people who had types of bone cancer other than osteosarcoma. Bassin's controls did not have any type of cancer. Since fluoride concentrates so highly in bone tissue, there is a plausible mechanism for it to increase the risk of any type of bone cancer, not just osteosarcoma. Virtually no fluoride studies have ever looked for risks in anything but osteosarcoma, so it is disingenuous for Douglass to imply that there is no evidence linking these other types of bone cancer to fluoride. If fluoride does cause these other types of bone cancer, then his bone cancer controls are a terrible choice and invalidate his findings.

Given these three potentially fatal weaknesses of Douglass' much-heralded study, the fluoridationist spin machine had to go into overdrive to claim his work refuted Bassin's.

Perhaps because of the vulnerability of Douglass' final word on fluoride-osteosarcoma, there has been a recent flurry of low quality ecological studies from fluoridating countries, all claiming to find no link between fluoride and osteosarcoma. Or perhaps these studies were done because Douglass was so many years late in producing his promised work, that fluoridating countries decided they needed something to try to counter Bassin. I have carefully reviewed each of these studies, from Ireland, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. They are all much weaker study designs than Bassin's case-control study. It is not surprising that these studies were unable to find a link.

So, on the final day of 2011, the issue of fluoride's carcinogenicity is still hot. It is a potential death knell for fluoridation, and the promoters know it and are scared. FAN will continue to use the best science to uncover the truth.

As Dr. John Colquon asked, is there any number of "prevented cavities" that can justify the life of one child who dies of bone cancer?

I've talked with parents of such children, and they are the most compelling reason for me to continue searching for the truth. I feel I owe my time and energy to them. You can be part of this effort through a donation to FAN ... and think of your support as potentially saving a child from getting bone cancer.

Chris Neurath is an invaluable member of our FAN team and Ellen and I cherish our 25 -year friendship with him (and now his wife Sara and young son Leo).

Here's wishing you all a Happy New Year and may we all achieve more successes battling fluoridation in our local communities and around the world.

Paul Connett,

UK - Daily Echo letter

2011-12-31T08:32:00.002Z

Let's all work to beat the scourge of leukaemia
I READ your article "vital steps to beat leukaemia" on December 28, about a "leukaemia busters" charity which is trying to prevent childhood leukaemia.
There should be more research and highlighting of the causes of this disease.
A friend of mine, researcher Edward
Priestley, survived bone marrow destruction caused by workplace toxic chemicals.
His research shows toxic chemicals, radiation and even certain medical drugs can cause leukaemia, aplastic anaemia and other serious ( blood diseases.
Benzene is a documented proven cause, but is widely used in industry!
Edward tries to avoid toxic chemicals such as fluoride, benzene, pesticides, solvents etc. Doctors did not think he would survive but, decades later, his blood count is normal.
He now spends his time helping sufferers voluntarily.
He has no magic bullet cure - just common sense information to give your body the best chance.
His website is: medicineandillness.com
Preventing the disease in the first place would save so much suffering.
A. WILLS, Ruislip, Middlesex.

Vegetarians More Likely to Have Dental Erosion

2011-12-30T12:30:00.000Z

All about teeth

Ireland - Fluoride question will 'come back to haunt us' says Cllr. Loughran

2011-12-29T09:14:00.001Z

Fluoride question will 'come back to haunt us' says Cllr. Loughran
Wednesday December 28 2011
'THIS WILL come back to haunt us. We are burying our head in the sand,' Cllr Jim Loughran warned at the monthly meeting of Louth County Council.

He had tabled a question asking 'for what purpose is fluoride being added to the domestic water supply in the country,' and said that while he noted the answer that it was done so in accordance with the regulations and as directed by the HSE, he was at a loss to understand why it was done in Ireland, while most countries in Europe have discontinued doing that.

Cllr Loughran noted that fluoride was listed as poison under the 1982 poisons act yet they were regularly putting it into the water supply.

Cllr Declan Breathnach said that the Chief Medical Officer with the Department of Health had made two presentations on the matter within the region.

He thought it was something which should be brought up in the Dáil if they wanted changes to the regulations.

USA - MOBILE FLUORIDE VANS TARGET FLUORIDE FREE COMMUNITIES - Alex Jones Infowars Nightly News

2011-12-29T09:11:00.000Z

USA - Mobile fluoride vans to target communities

2011-12-28T12:07:00.001Z

Mobile fluoride vans to target communities that voted to remove chemical from public water supply
Tuesday, December 27, 2011 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
Back in October, the Pinellas County, Fla., Commission voted 4 - 3 to stop adding artificial fluoride chemicals to the county's municipal water supply, which serves roughly 700,000 residents But now local health officials are suggesting that the county purchase a mobile fluoride van as an alternative, which would drive around town and administer fluoride and other conventional dental services directly to children.

Believe it or not, the St. Petersburg Times reports that the Pinellas County Commission will soon vote on whether or not to purchase this mobile fluoride van for $532,339 in taxpayer funds, which is more than twice the $205,000 a year the county has been spending to purchase fluoride chemicals for the water supply. The Commission had asked the county's Health and Human Services department to come up with a new way to use the $205,000 for other dental purposes, and the mobile fluoride van was their proposal.

"There's no way I'm going to support a $532,000 item," said Commissioner John Morroni, who was one of the members who voted in favor of ending water fluoridation. "You can buy a lot of toothpaste and help the dentists disburse it."

Morroni is right, of course -- if the county is persistent in making sure as many children as possible are fluoridated, there are much less expensive ways to distribute it than to purchase a half-million-dollar van. But the van's proponents say it is the "most efficient option" for making sure children do not escape getting their fluoride.

Never has it been proven that consuming fluoride in any way helps improve teeth, though, despite what health officials claim. And adding fluoride chemicals to water, which is their preferred method, is a very poor method of delivery even if the chemical did help teeth. This is because 99 percent or more of flouride ends up on lawns or flowing down the drain, rather than actually being ingested.

There is also no way to regulate the ingestion of the so-called "optimum" level of fluoride because individuals drink varying amounts of fluoridated water, and are also exposed to it in unknown amounts through their skin whenever they wash their hands or take a shower. In other words, water fluoridation is one of the most unscientific, unsubstantiated, and ridiculous "public health" schemes to ever be devised, and it is nothing more than forced medication of the masses.

Be sure to check out the laundry list of diseases and health conditions that can develop as a result of fluoride exposure:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034499_fluoride_vans_water_supply.html#ixzz1hpWtJZjC

CDC Recommends LESS Fluoride.mp4

2011-12-27T08:37:00.001Z

Improving Children’s Oral Health Care

2011-12-27T08:19:00.003Z

Improving Children’s Oral Health Care
Submitted by Cindy Tweed on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 13:05
Michael Matheson United Kingdom NHS
It has been recently revealed that the new NHS figures have good news for parents worried about decaying teeth of their children. According to recent statistics, it has been revealed that there is a steady decline in the number of tooth decays and fillings, and other teeth-related treatments for children in recent times. This has been possible through the combined efforts of the parents, teachers and the awareness volunteers.

Children have been made to follow better oral hygiene habits by their teachers and their parents, and this has helped them in keeping their teeth stronger and free of decay. The NHS revealed that they are steadily meeting their targets, and this has helped in the declining number of tooth problems in children. This is a positive sign and it shows that children are taking good care of their teeth, brushing twice a day, going for regular check-ups with their parents, and are flossing every time they eat something sweet.

The results are very encouraging and it means that the tremendous efforts made by the awareness team at schools and public centres, for the promotion of child oral care, have done extremely well and children are suffering from lesser decaying tooth.

"This is tremendous progress and is a sign that we are reaping the reward of our significant investment in children's dentistry. However, it is important to make sure that we maintain this oral health record over Christmas and New Year”, revealed Michael Matheson, the Public Health Minister.

And therefore, people need to keep up the good work and promote their children to have good oral hygiene habits to prevent tooth decay and painful treatments for the same in the time to come.

Shows it is possible to improve children's teeth without resorting to fluoridation.

ETV Special Focus on fluoride water in nellore district

2011-12-25T08:59:00.000Z

I didn't understand a word but those poor pople suffering from fluoride poisoning, just look at the kid's teeth.

Scotland - All smiles as children kick tooth decay

2011-12-25T08:46:00.000Z

All smiles as children kick tooth decay
Published on Saturday 24 December 2011 12:00
CHILDREN’s dental health across the Lothians has never been better, the Scottish Government has said.
Around three-quarters of youngsters now have no sign of tooth decay as they reach primary seven age.
Ministers said this was well above target, and showed huge improvements since 2009.
The picture among adults was also encouraging, with the vast majority now registered with a dentist, while 85 per cent of children are also signed up.
Public health minister Michael Matheson said: “It is fantastic news that our primary seven children in Scotland have the best dental health since records began and, for the first time, all 14 NHS Boards have exceeded the target – that 60 per cent should have no obvious signs of decay.
“This is a sign that we are reaping the reward of our significant investment in children’s dentistry. However, it is important to make sure that we maintain this record as we move into 2012.”

Fluoride acts on plaque-causing bugs`

2011-12-25T08:44:00.000Z

Fluoride acts on plaque-causing bugs`
Last Updated: Saturday, December 24Washington: Regular use of fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash, known to toughen teeth enamel, also acts on plaque-causing bugs. Conversely, these bugs try to fend off fluoride as a toxic substance, according to a new study led by Ronald Breaker, a researcher at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI).
The bacterial response indicates that fluoride itself has antimicrobial properties, Breaker said.
"Our data not only help explain how cells fight the toxicity of fluoride, but it also gives us a sense of how we might be able to enhance the antimicrobial properties of fluoride," says Breaker.
"In the future we might be able to use this knowledge to make fluoride even more toxic to bacteria," he adds.
Blocking the fluoride channel, for example, makes cells 200 times more sensitive to fluoride, the researchers showed.

Not just to bacteria!

Daily Echo - We shouldn't be made to drink 'Toxin'

2011-12-23T09:15:00.000Z

We shouldn't be made to drink 'Toxin'
AM I against strong teeth and bones? No, I am pro-strong teeth and bones, as well as a strong immune system, healthy thyroids, good nutrient absorption and smarter kids.
In the USA announcements from both the Center for Disease Control and the American Dental Association have new reports that confirm people are experiencing fluoride toxicity from water fluoridation programmes and it has damaging effects to teeth, bones and the thyroid gland.
The National Academy of Sciences 2006 report in the USA found persuasive evidence that fluoridation causes fluorosis, increases bone fractures as well as stiffness of the joints, and that it may be related to Alzheimer's disease.
Many places in the USA and Canada are now rushing to stop water fluoridation. When put to a democratic vote water fluoridation is nearly always rejected, and for very valid reasons.
If you read the back of any fluoridated toothpaste in the USA it says: "If you accidentally swallow more than a pea-size amount, consult poison control."
One 8oz glass of fluoridated water can equal a similar dose of fluoride, or four times children six months to three years old. Studies prove there is no decrease in tooth decay in cities that fluoridate their water but there is an increase in serious health conditions including thyroid disorders, hip fractures, genetic damage, IQ reduction, birth defects, miscarriages, kidney damage and arthritis, just to name a few. The science is available, the documents are on file, the physiological damage to people is evident and there are numerous health professionals worldwide that are waking up to the damage fluoride is doing.
However, our health authorities in Southampton have poured scientific and moral shame on themselves by pushing water fluoridation here. Maybe in 2012 the plans to force people in Southampton to drink this toxin in our water will be stopped, but don't count on it.
Fluoride consumption through drinking water has never been proven safe.
The chemical added to water does not occur naturally in our body.
It is NOT an essential nutrient. There are reasons why fluoride is used in insecticides and rat poison -it kills at very low doses and just because humans are much larger it does not make it safe for us.
There is a toxicity level that many surpass when drinking fluoridated water. Shouldn't we have the choice if we want to supplement with, bathe in and breathe in the vapours of this chemical?
When 71 per cent of us say we do not want fluoride, we mean it!
JOHN SPOTTISWOODE, Southampton.

A2ZedHealth - Fluoride Is Poison

2011-12-22T09:09:00.001Z

The Ultimate Mouthwash: Has Tooth Decay Finally Met Its Match?

2011-12-22T08:57:00.001Z

The Ultimate Mouthwash: Has Tooth Decay Finally Met Its Match?
By Neil Wagner
Dec 21 2011, 1:04 PM ET
Call it a smart bomb against plaque. It's just in development, but a new mouthwash targets the bacteria that causes cavities in humans.
Tooth decay may finally have met its match. A small study of a new mouthwash found that it kills virtually all of the bacteria that cause tooth decay, but leaves other, beneficial oral bacteria alone. Its inventor likens it to a smart bomb. And he thinks it could wipe out tooth decay in our lifetime.

Nearly all tooth decay is caused by a single species of bacteria, Streptococcus mutans. Conventional mouthwashes are only effective against it for a few hours and indiscriminately kill other beneficial mouth bacteria. And while toothbrushing certainly helps prevent cavities, also known as dental caries, sometimes it's not enough. Tooth decay is a problem faced by over half the people in the nation.
Wenyuan Shi, a UCLA microbiologist, has been working for years to design small compounds that kill only specific types of bacteria. They work by linking together a small compound that kills bacteria with a second small compound that targets the package to a single species of bacteria. Shi calls these compounds STAMPs, small targeted anti-microbial peptides.

In the case of C16G2, the STAMP is made of a portion of the broad-spectrum antibiotic Novispirin G10 linked to a portion of a pheromone naturally produced by Streptococcus mutans called competence stimulating peptide. The pheromone guides the molecule to S. mutans; the antibiotic kills it. Quickly.

It's not quite as simple as it sounds. A STAMP made by combining the full-length antibiotic and pheromone wasn't effective. Getting one that worked required quite a bit of molecular tinkering and ended up shortening the two compounds before linking them together.

Shi's lab has also come up with STAMPs that are effective against species of Pseudomonas, bacteria that cause many hospital-acquired infections.

One problem with antibiotic use is that they're indiscriminate, killing both helpful and harmful bacteria. Another is that they eventually breed resistance into the bacteria exposed to them. STAMPs should help limit this because only the target bacteria end up getting exposed to antibiotic. The technology is too new for anyone to be certain about its long-term effects.

People have been living with S. mutans practically ever since there have been people. Like our gut bacteria, it's been a constant companion, though not a friendly one. If Dr. Shi's mouthwash can truly eliminate it or even curb it, millions will be smiling.

Larger trials are scheduled to begin in March.

Do Not Give Fluoridated Water to Babies or Pregnant Mothers

2011-12-21T12:34:00.000Z

Do Not Give Fluoridated Water to Babies or Pregnant Mothers
Dr. Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH for Salem-News.com
There is still not one single prospective double blinded randomized controlled trial of fluoridation.
(WILSONVILLE, Ore.) - If you are upset with the lack of SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) oversight of Bernie Madoff, then fluoridation will break your heart. The incompetent oversight of Health and Human Services, CDC, EPA, and FDA CDER dwarfs the Madoff scandal. Those who have blind trust in all government regulators need not read further.
CONTAMINATED WASTE
Fluoridation is the process of adding a highly toxic industrial waste, often contaminated with lead and arsenic, to public water. In contrast, naturally occurring fluoride is usually calcium fluoride, about 800 times less toxic.
MOTHER’S MILK
In 2006 the CDC and others advised that infants should not consume fluoridated water. Fluoridated water contains around 200 times more fluoride than mother's milk and is not safe for infants. Caution: do not mix infant formula with fluoridated water. Salem water is not safe for infants.

Mother’s breast milk provides complete nutrition for babies and is virtually fluoride free. A baby’s kidneys are only about 20% developed and their blood brain barrier has not fully formed. Most babies are consuming some formula, often made with tap water, up to four times more liquids for their weight as do adults.

Below is an EPA (2011 DRA) graph. All the children above the black line are ingesting too much fluoride. The EPA has attempted to paint the best picture possible. EPA does not include infants younger than six months of age. EPA only includes 90% of the children and provides a 1:1 margin of safety (1:10 or 1:100 is standard). The EPA increased the RfD by 33% and failed to include total fluoride exposure. Even then, more than a quarter of children are ingesting too much fluoride.........
A detailed article at web page.

Are Fluoride Supplements Good For Children?

2011-12-20T08:48:00.000Z

Are Fluoride Supplements Good For Children?
By Christine Hsu
Fluoride supplements do not reduce tooth decay in baby teeth and the health risks of the supplements have not been adequately studied, according to a new study.
The Cochrane Oral Health Group said Monday fluoride supplements significantly increase the risk of dental fluorosis. The condition is a change in appearance of the tooth’s enamel caused by too much consumption of fluoride over long periods when teeth are developing under the gums.
The New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. announced on Monday that Cochrane researchers reported no difference between fluoride supplements and topical fluorides and other preventative measures on permanents or deciduous teeth.

"We rated ten trials as being at unclear risk of bias and one at high risk of bias, and therefore the trials provide weak evidence about the efficacy of fluoride supplements," the Cochrane research team said in a statement. It “found limited information” that showed the harmful effects associated with the use of fluoride supplements, according to the NYSCOF statement.

ADA Affirms Fluoride for Cavities

The American Dental Association said in a 2010 statement that dentists should continue to prescribe dietary fluoride supplements to children who are at high risk of developing tooth decay and to those who live in areas without community water fluoridations.

Steven Schonfeld, an ADA spokesperson and an expert on fluoridation told Medical Daily on Monday that fluoride supplements can be very useful for people who don’t get enough fluoride, and that extensive reviews about fluoride have debunked many of the claims made by the NYSCOF and other organizations like it.

“There is a preponderance of good and valid scientific evidence that fluoride is good and beneficial for reduced cavities,” Schonfeld said.

Advocates Challenge CDC

The coalition pointed out that the US Centers for Disease Control endorses and encourages the use of fluoride supplements to be routinely prescribed to children who don’t live in water fluoridated communities.
However, the NYSCOF said the CDC has ignored the earlier studies, such as research from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, that have also found that fluoride tablets and mouth rinses failed to reduce tooth decay.
The statement by the coalition also said there was a significant increase of dental fluorosis to be associated with fluoride supplements.
"In non-fluoridated communities, the use of fluoride supplements during the first 6 years of life is associated with a significant increase in the risk of developing dental fluorosis," according to a meta-analysis by the Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology.
“Belgium stopped selling fluoride supplements in 2002 because documentation revealed that fluoride can cause physical and neurological harm with little evidence of decay reduction,” the coalition said.
According to the National Library of Medicine, fluoride comes with a variety of side effects which included teeth stains, unusual increase in saliva, vomiting, diarrhea, rash, tremor, and in some cases seizures.
“Despite growing scientific evidence that shows ingesting fluoride does not reduce tooth decay and can be harmful to health, including lowering IQ, it seems the CDC has convinced the Pew Charitable Trust to use its lobbying power and political clout to force more fluoride into Americans via the water supply, even where voters rejected fluoridation,” concluded NYSCOF in the statement.

USA - Health Service

2011-12-19T09:03:00.001Z

Echo letter

2011-12-19T08:29:00.001Z

The truth about the risk of fluoride in drinking water
IN his recent Echo letter "Deliberate Water Contamination" G Payne despaired that no organisation within Parliament, the NHS or water industry is prepared to stand up for our right to have uncontaminated water.
It is known that the fluoride used in water fluoridation comes from industrial waste and contains pollutants such as arsenic, mercury, lead etc. It was not honest of the authorities to tell G Payne that low levels of arsenic in drinking water are not harmful. Even tiny levels of arsenic carry a risk.
A study by the National Academy of Sciences found that arsenic in drinking water causes bladder, lung and skin cancer and harms the human nervous system. Arsenic can also cause birth defects and reproductive problems.
Some authorities work on the principle that if they spread pollution around at low levels, such as in water fluoridation, the causes of most people's illness will not be pin-pointed. Visit www.medicineandillness.com for some causes of cancer, such as fluoride.
A WILLS, Ruislip, Middlesex.

Pensacola Fluoride TV - 1 of 5 Dr Paul Connett FluoideAlert.org

2011-12-17T09:28:00.001Z

Well worth watching again.

Daily Echo - letter

2011-12-17T09:27:00.000Z

This is a democracy so stop fluoride!
REGARDING the article "Decision-making on fluoride was 'terrible'" (Daily Echo, December 10), it appears that the House of Lords has been informed that Southampton residents are having fluoride put into their water against "expressed wishes". A real democratic fiasco!
Who cares about costs? The residents just don't want fluoride in their water.
Why can't this Strategic Health Authority (SHA) stop its stubborn aim to put waste material into our water?
Fluoride in the past was put into toothpaste for children. Maybe fluoride could be put into bottled water and then people could have fluoride in their own water should they wish to.
This would then leave the majority being able to enjoy their clean water as they had in the past.
To make 200,000 people in the different parts of Southampton be affected by this is unacceptable in a democratic system. And then to speak of "financial benefits" from the improvement in public health is disgusting.
The north of England doesn't have to tolerate this. Why do we?
Of course, we can have a direct interest in the cost of dental health -just have these families buy toothpaste with fluoride in it. Fluoride can also be issued by dentists, even though it does make the teeth yellow. Yellow teeth are not unhealthy.
It is so ironic that some people in Africa would give anything to have our clean water and we go and "poison" it while giving aid to those in Africa to purify their water.
Let's hope this SHA, along with this great coalition Government, can finally give the majority of people what they want in a true democracy (if we still have a democracy!)
ALBERT-LAURITZ RASMUSSEN, Totton.

UK - Lymington Times - Fluoride go-ahead 'undemocratic'

2011-12-16T18:23:00.000Z

Fluoride go-ahead 'undemocratic' Forest MP tells health secretary
A NEW FOREST MP has challenged the health minister over controversial plans to add fluoride to Southampton's water supply.
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) gave its approval for the chemical to be added to Southampton's supply in 2009 after the local primary care trust said it was needed to combat child tooth decay.
The plan affects 190,000 people around the city, including 8,000 Totton residents because of the layout of the pipes.
Members of Southampton City Council had originally supported the scheme, but voted against it by a majority of two-to-one In September.
But despite the opposition, the council is powerless to stop the action, even though the government is set to scrap regional health bodies and give power to local councils in 2013.
New Forest East MP Julian Lewis raised the issue in the House of Commons and asked Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley, when Southampton City Council and New Forest District Council were expected' to take over responsibility from the SHA.
He also wrote a letter to Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Anne Milton MP to voice his concerns.
He wrote: "Southampton City Council has now expressed the view that fluoride should not be added to the water supply. This brings it into line with Hampshire County Council, New Forest District Council and Totton and Eling Town Council.
"Surely you can see that it would be inappropriate and undemocratic for a body to impose a measure in its dying days, when it knows perfectly well that the democratically-elected local authorities, to which its powers are about to be transferred, are opposed to fluoridation proceeding.
"The question is, therefore, one of democracy rather than technical legality, and I look to you to recognise a view that expresses that it is not acceptable for the SHA to proceed."
Mrs Milton replied on behalf of Mr Lansley but did not give an indication of time scales. She also wrote to Dr Lewis and said: "The SHA has complied with the current legislation, which was in force in 2008 when it conducted the consultation on the fluoridation scheme.
"The Health and Social Care Bill currently before Parliament provides responsibility for consultations on fluoridation to transfer to local authorities.
"The bill includes powers to make new regulations which will include the criteria which local authorities should apply in determining when consultations on the continuance of existing fluoridation schemes should be conducted. We will be consulting on the content of these regulations before they are laid."
The issue was also recently raised in the House of Lords by Earl Baldwin, a cross-bench hereditary peer, who branded the decision-making process as "pretty terrible".
He asked Government whip Baroness Northover to set up a neutral body to rule on the evidence next time another city considers fluoridation.
Before the SHA unanimously backed the scheme, 72% of the 10,000 respondents to a public consultation said they opposed fluoride.
A two-day legal challenge to the scheme was heard in the High Court earlier this year but a final appeal for a judicial review was rejected by the judge.

NZ good ending story of a boy's dental problem.

2011-12-16T14:15:00.001Z

Last night Campbell Live brought you the story of 12-year-old Evan Hill, whose massive front teeth have made his life hell

Nothing to do with fluoride just a nice ending to a story about a boy with terrible buck teeth in NZ

Will Regrowing Your Teeth Replace Fillings?

2011-12-16T13:50:00.001Z

Will Regrowing Your Teeth Replace Fillings?
THE SUPERTOOTH SQUAD: Researchers at the UIC College of Dentistry are trying to turn fillings, crowns, bridges, and dentures into relics of the past—by harnessing nature to grow and implant new teeth
By Karen Springen
For anyone who has ever lost a tooth—including the 25 percent of Americans over 65 who have lost all theirs due to decay or gum disease—it may be possible to get natural replacements someday, thanks to breakthroughs being made at the University of Illinois at Chicago. On the fourth floor of the school’s College of Dentistry, researchers are inducing lab rats to form new dentin to fill cavities in their choppers. It’s the first step toward the holy grail of dentistry: regrowing teeth. Eventually people may be able to get replacement teeth—even a whole set of 32—made of human dentin and enamel and attached to the jaw with human fibers (rather than the titanium posts used today)....

Fluoridated USA

Teeth are under attack

2011-12-16T13:48:00.001Z

Teeth are under attack
16 December 2011
Spare a thought for your teeth this Christmas, as eating and drinking habits could be putting your teeth in constant danger for 48 hours.

Constant snacking, drinking and eating of sugary foods and drinks over Christmas can make the holiday period a miserable time for teeth. The indulgences and tempting treats on Christmas Day and Boxing Day in particular means that teeth are likely to be under constant risk of attack from tooth decay and tooth erosion over the festive 48 hour period.

Sugar-filled mince pies, chocolate selection boxes, fizzy drinks and acidic alcoholic drinks like red wine that make up a traditional festive diet are all likely to pose a hazard to teeth during the holidays. Whether young or old, the message remains the same; don’t forget about your oral health.

Chief Executive of the British Dental Health Foundation, Dr Nigel Carter, said: “It is important to be extra vigilant with your oral health over the Christmas period. Your teeth are under attack for up to one hour after eating or drinking, and if you think about how much is consumed, and how often, particularly over Christmas and Boxing Day, your teeth don’t really get the chance to recover.

“Brushing your teeth just before you go to bed will make sure that you have removed acid forming plaque before sleep as at night your saliva flow (the tooth’s natural protective mechanism) slows down, while brushing first thing in the morning is a simple way to limit damage caused to your teeth. If you’re partying late, with less sleep than normal, you may also want to take extra care of your teeth during the day.”

In order to ensure you fully enjoy this time of year without having to compromise on what you eat and drink, the Foundation recommends you bear in mind it is not how much sugary food and drink you have, it is how often you have them that causes a perilous situation for oral health.

There is some good news. Some traditional foods like Cranberries, the perfect accompaniment for your Turkey, are scientifically proven to be beneficial to overall health, and scientists have also shown they may have the capacity to help prevent both gum disease and tooth decay. However, moderation is important as cranberries are acidic and it is a good idea not to have them too often throughout the day to avoid erosion of your teeth’s enamel.

Other things like passing a tin of sweets around throughout the day, selection boxes and even Bucks Fizz have the potential to damage teeth if consumed too often, and for this reason it’s best to try and keep them to mealtimes. Mince pies, Christmas cake and Christmas pudding are all laden with dried fruit which is high in sugar and sticks to the teeth where it can cause most damage.

To accommodate these treats, it’s a great idea to open the cheeseboard after mealtimes as a small piece of cheese will help return the mouth to its natural acid balance and help reduce the chances of tooth decay.

Chewing on sugar-free gum for around 10 minutes can also have the same effect.

To accommodate your child’s sweet tooth without damaging their teeth, Dr Carter suggested some novel yet practical ways of getting the balance between sweet tooth and healthy tooth right.

Dr Carter said: “Children will inevitably get sweets, so try and get them to eat them straight after mealtimes rather than grazing on them all day.
“New research even suggests ice cream containing probiotic could reduce levels of tooth decay so in the future this could become a healthier option.

“Any fruit juice they have should be diluted 10 parts water to one part juice as most are acidic and many contain added sugar.

Proof that Fluoride causes Alzheimers!

2011-12-15T08:49:00.000Z

Maybe.

Julian Lewis MP write to Minister

2011-12-14T18:44:00.000Z

HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SXTIA OAA
Mrs Anne Milton MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Department of Health
Richmond House 79 Whitehall London SW1A 2NS
Ref: PO00000657542

8 December 2011

Fluoridation: an issue of principle
I am very grateful for your reply recently to my letter to Andrew Lansley
about continuing concern in both the city of Southampton and the town of
Totton, in my constituency, about fluoridation proposals.
The point of contacting Andrew was to confirm something which I had
mentioned to him verbally: namely that Southampton City Council has now
expressed the view that fluoride should not be added to the city's water
supply. This brings it into line with Hampshire County Council. New Forest
District Council and Totton and Eling Town Council as well as the two Labour
MPs and one Conservative representing the areas to be affected. In the case
of the two Labour MPs, they personally support fluoridation, but - rightly,
in my view - they believe it should not happen in the face of the current
level of public opposition to it.
I have no doubt that it is within the legal powers of the outgoing Strategic
Health Authority to force through fluoridation right up to the 59th minute
of the 23rd hour of the day on which it is finally abolished. My point is
that such behaviour would be morally indefensible - and I should like you to
express a view on this aspect, too.
Surely you can see that it would be inappropriate and undemocratic for a
body to impose a measure in its dying days, when it knows perfectly well
that the democratically-elected local authorities, to which its powers are
about to be transferred, are opposed to fluoridation proceeding?
However much you as an individual and the Department of Health as an
organisation may regard fluoridation as a good thing, the issue of principle
here is that it should not be imposed by a non-elected body which is about
to transfer its powers to do this to other, democratically-elected, bodies
which have stated their opposition to the proposal.
The question is, therefore, one of democracy rather than technical
legality - and I look to you to express a view which recognises that it is
not acceptable for the SHA to proceed as it proposes and to override the
positions taken against fluoridation by the elected bodies to which its
powers are presently to be transferred.

Dr Julian Lewis MP

Alex Jones Investigation - FLUORIDE In Tap Water

2011-12-14T09:40:00.000Z

Daily Echo - Are we really 'all in it together', Prime Minister?

2011-12-14T09:12:00.001Z

Are we really 'all in it together', Prime Minister?
AS an admirer of David Cameron's famous call for 'a big society and we are all in it together' speech, I am concerned that he did not really mean what he said.
I am one of the 72 per cent of Southampton citizens who are opposed to fluoride being introduced into our drinking water, supposedly to prevent children's tooth decay.
Mr Cameron's big society seems to exclude Southampton citizens and we don't appear to be all in it together.
There has been no reply to the 10,000-signature anti-fluoride petition handed in at No 10The Great Fluoride Debate in the Daily Echo will go down in history as the longest on record.
Will Mr Cameron please submit his own letter, perhaps explaining why the SHA was allowed to waste thousands of pounds on a public exercise followed by a judicial inquiry when the decision to fluoridate our water had already been decided by the Government?
Democracy surely will have no meaning if dictatorship is allowed to take its place.
A letter I believe would be most welcome by the citizens of Southampton, and help to restore my confidence in the big society.
At least I would know that my vote would be taken seriously in future elections and I would know who to vote for.
A WILLOTT, Lordswood, Southampton.

FAN Newsletter

2011-12-14T09:08:00.000Z

Over the next few days we will be circulating a series of bulletins summarizing some of the achievements that FAN and others have had in the effort to rid the world of the wretched practice of water fluoridation. In the process we thought it would be nice to introduce members of the FAN team and some of our key supporters from around the world. We start today with Tara Blank, a Ph.D. Biologist who joined us last year as our Science and Health Liaison Officer.

Prior to joining the FAN team, Tara was involved in physiology research, which she had planned to continue as a life-long career. "Then I had my daughter. I started reading more about environmental toxins, in an effort to protect her. I came across so much information that was not being publicized, and so many potential health issues that were not being adequately researched."

The toxicity of fluoride was something that really caught Tara's attention. "We have an entire country of children being overexposed to fluoride through dental products, foods, and beverages--yet we're being told that we need even more from our drinking water? It's absurd. And it should anger everyone that the fluoride being added to our water--to our children's water--is not even pharmaceutical grade, but is actually hazardous waste that has never been tested for safety."
When FAN announced an opening with the team, Tara jumped at the opportunity. "Working for a non-profit was not something I had planned, but now that I've become involved, I can't imagine doing anything else. Everyone fighting this battle is so passionate and devoted. It's really amazing to see what can be accomplished when everyone works together and supports each other's efforts."

Infowars Hidden Camera - Fluoride Treatment Facility

2011-12-13T09:03:00.001Z

Graeme and Lillian Munro on toxic dentistry part 6

2011-12-13T08:55:00.000Z

The Great Culling Official Fluoride Trailer 2

2011-12-12T08:56:00.001Z

Graeme and Lillian Munro on toxic dentistry part 5

2011-12-11T12:17:00.000Z

Daily Echo report on House of Lords debate

2011-12-10T08:52:00.001Z

SOUTHAMPTON: Hereditary peer speaks out over SHA consultation
Decision-making on fluoride was 'terrible
By Tom Moseley
SOUTHAMPTON residents are having fluoride put in their water against their "expressed wishes", the House of Lords has been told.
The decision-making process was branded "pretty terrible" by a peer who accused health bosses of "misstatements".
Earl Baldwin's comments came as members of the House of Lords raised fears over costs, evidence and local consent before any fluoridation takes place.
The peers were discussing proposals which will transfer power over consultations on fluoridation to local authorities, which will be put out to consultation in the new year. The Government admitted there were "a great range of views" on the matter and insisted decisions should be taken by local councils, not regional health bodies. Earl Baldwin, a cross-bench hereditary peer, asked Government whip Baroness Northover to set up a neutral body to rule on the evidence next time another city considers fluoridation. He said: "Some of the misstatements during the Southampton consultation were pretty terrible." He went on to criticise Strategic Health Authorities, the regional bodies that were put in charge of deciding whether fluoride should be added to water. He said: "The problem with the unelected SHAs was - is -that they almost inevitably reflected the dominant medical view. "Fluoridation was a classic case of premature consensus, on weak evidence from the 1950s and 1960s, and it became a kind of sacred cow, resistant to new evidence."
The Strategic Health Authority had decided to fluoridate Southampton "against the expressed wishes of its population", he said, pointing to comments by one expert who described the process as a "religion". In September, Southampton city councillors voted to oppose the controversial plans after a campaign by opponents of the scheme forced the matter to be debated in the council chamber.
And they agreed to use any future powers to prevent the implementation of a proposed fluoridation scheme by health chiefs................

Australia - Half of young kids have tooth decay

2011-12-09T09:17:00.000Z

08 Dec, 2011 04:00 AM
About half of all young children have holes in their teeth, the latest snapshot of the nation's dental health shows.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found 40 per cent of children aged between four and five and 60 per cent of six- to eight-year-olds had cavities in their temporary, or baby, teeth, in 2006.
More than half of all 15-year-olds had cavities in their permanent teeth compared with just 1 per cent of five-year-olds.
The report said untreated decay was the most common reason why children aged five to eight had holes in their teeth, while nine-year-olds had the most number of fillings.
It also painted an unflattering picture of the inside of adults' mouths.
Nearly a third of 25- to 44-year-olds had untreated tooth decay, the main cause of tooth loss, compared with a quarter of people aged over 65. Men were more likely not to treat their rotting teeth compared with women, 28 per cent to 23 per cent.
By 2010, one-fifth of adults over 65 had none of their natural teeth left, with nearly half wearing dentures.

Fluoridated Australia!

Debate in House of Lords

2011-12-08T11:47:00.001Z

Go to
6.58 pm
Clause 30 agreed.
If you want to see the fluoridation debate in the House of Lords

New dental nurses set to start work in north Cumbria

2011-12-08T08:29:00.000Z

New dental nurses set to start work in north Cumbria
By Phil Coleman
07 December 2011
Children in north Cumbria have good reason to smile this week – after a group of 10 county dental nurses completed their training in how to better protect young teeth.
The nurses, who work in NHS dental surgeries, were presented with certificates after completing a course that polished their skills in giving preventive advice and applying fluoride varnish in the fight against dental decay.
The certificate presentations took place last night at the Carlisle Dental Education Centre.
NHS Cumbria has been changing the way dental services are delivered, focusing on a more preventative approach .
Eric Rooney is NHS Cumbria’s Consultant in Dental Public Health.
He said: “Gone are the days when you went to see your dentist and they just fixed or cleaned your teeth.
“We now want to help people learn how to best maintain their own oral health and not just focus on cure, but also on preventing problems developing in the first place.
“For children, the regular application of fluoride varnish is one of the effective preventative measures which helps them maintain good oral health when they are young. "

Graeme and Lillian Munro on toxic dentistry part 4

2011-12-07T13:43:00.001Z

Ireland - Psychiatrist calls for lithium to be added to water

2011-12-06T13:50:00.002Z

Psychiatrist calls for lithium to be added to water
A consultant psychiatrist last night called on Government to add lithium salts to the public water supply in a bid to lower the suicide rate and depression among the general population.

At a mental health forum on “Depression in Rural Ireland” in Ennistymon, Co Clare, Dr Moosajee Bhamjee said that “there is growing scientific evidence that adding trace amounts of the drug lithium to a water supply can lower rates of suicide and depression”.

Lithium is used by doctors as a mood stabiliser in the treatment for depression.

Dr Bhamjee said: “A recent article in the British Journal of Psychiatry found the beneficial uses of lithium when it was added to the water supply in parts of Texas.”

He said the Government should consider a pilot project for a town in Ireland where lithium salts could be added to the water in very small doses and examine the results.” He said there was already strong precedent for governments intervening in the operation of public water supply for health benefits by adding fluoride.........

Why do they tackle the effects rather than the cause, what is wrong with society to drive people to take their life. What causes dental decay - as if we didn't know.

Graeme and Lillian Munro on toxic dentistry part 3

2011-12-06T08:59:00.001Z

The Great Culling Official Fluoride Trailer 2

2011-12-05T08:59:00.001Z

Water fluoride exposure damages brain

2011-12-05T08:46:00.003Z

Water fluoride exposure damages brain
Sun Dec 4, 2011 6:43PM GMT
A new study conducted by scientists in India has proved that chronic high fluoride exposure in drinking water can damage the brain.
Researchers focused on the intelligent development that is diminished by high levels of fluoride in drinking water, Infowars reported.
The study, which was performed on rats for a period of 60 days, showed that fluoride caused neurodegenerative and morphological alterations in the neocortex, hippocampus and cerebellum areas of the brain, and in the spinal cord and sciatic nerve.
“High levels of fluoride in drinking water (1-12 ppm) affect central nervous system directly without first causing the physical deformities of skeletal fluorosis,” K. Pratap Reddy of the University College of sciences at Osmania University in Hyderabad wrote in the Journal of Medical and Allied Sciences.
According to the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), there are now 25 studies showing that fluoride is associated with IQ reduction, even at fluoride levels as low as 0.3 to 3 parts per million, which overlaps the range in many American communities (0.7 to 1.2 ppm).
A previous rat study conducted by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix and her colleagues in 1995 showed that fluoride “can be indicative of a potential for motor dysfunction, IQ deficits and/or learning disabilities in humans.”
Numerous studies conducted in different countries such as the US, Mexico, China and India have determined that fluoride exposure is associated with IQ deficits in children.

The BDA, BFS and the CMO will ignore this evidence and still promote fluoridation.

Northern Ireland teenagers' tooth decay levels worst in Europe

2011-12-05T08:41:00.000Z

Northern Ireland teenagers' tooth decay levels worst in Europe
Peter Crooks of the BDA accused the Department of Health of dragging its feet Northern Ireland teenagers have the highest level of tooth decay in Europe, a study funded by Queen's University has found.
Teenagers, particularly in deprived areas, were twice as likely to have permanent damage than those elsewhere.
The report said teenagers in affluent areas were having braces fitted and aesthetic treatments.
The British Dental Association said a dental health strategy, published five years ago, must be implemented.
Poor diet, social deprivation and a non-fluoridated water supply all contribute to bad teeth.
As well as highlighting the standard of oral hygiene the report also found that teenagers in poorer areas were more likely to have extractions.
Peter Crooks from the BDA said the current dental contract did not pay dentists to deliver preventive treatments..... That is disgusting treatment pulling teeth out rather than saving them.

The BDA are still promoting fluoride.

Canada Green TV interviews Cindy Mayor (COF-COF Educator) about water fluoridation 29-Nov-2011

2011-12-04T08:54:00.000Z

Interview: Valdosta Water Treatment Plant

2011-12-04T08:52:00.001Z

Interview with personnel at the water treatment plant in Valdosta, Georgia. This led to a discovery of environmental racism as officials declare THM's (trihalomethane) the most problematic substance to manage in the drinking water occurring predominantly on the south side of town. THM's are carcinogens produced from organic substances such as fecal matter. The city water is treated with chlorine and released from the water treatment plant on the north side of town. Only residual amounts of chlorine make it to the south side of Valdosta, thus the repeated levels of trihalomethane reported in the city drinking water primarily on the south side of Valdosta. Georgia. Questions were also asked in this interview concerning fluoride levels in the city drinking water. Due to the fact that Valdosta, Georgia is home to SAFT, a corporation that makes batteries, questions were also asked about Antinomy; a metal found in ground water caused by the production of batteries.

Poor sound quality but interesting.

Paul Connett Talks About Fluoride Part 1/3

2011-12-03T09:35:00.000Z

Graeme and Lillian Munro on toxic dentistry part 2

2011-12-03T09:22:00.001Z

Ireland - The state of our dental health

2011-12-03T09:15:00.000Z

The state of our dental health
By Eilish O'Regan
Saturday December 03 2011
LEVELS of tooth decay in Irish children have fallen in the past three decades, but it remains a very common childhood disease.
One study found that two-thirds of 15-year-olds have decay in their permanent teeth.
The dental health of the less well-off is worse than in the rest of the population.
Decay levels among medical-card holders are higher.
In 2009, there were 604,772 fillings carried out on medical-card holders, but there were just 221,000 between January and August this year.
Fillings are more cost efficient than dentures in the long-term.
Medical-card holders are entitled to new dentures, which cost about €412 every four years and are a lifetime commitment for the Health Service Executive.
- Eilish O'Regan
Irish Independent

But they have fluorosis from too much fluoride and they still get rotten teeth!

Cumbrians Against Fluoridation - Close United Utilities plant for good

2011-12-03T09:03:00.001Z

Close United Utilities plant for good
by Dainne Standen, of Cumbrians Against Fluoridation
Last updated at 11:54, Friday, 02 December 2011
Last year Cumbrians Against Fluoridation discovered that fluoride had not been added to the water that supplies the Cockermouth and Maryport area since 2006.
Local health authorities claimed they were unaware of the removal of fluoride by United Utilities.
There has been no apology to the many who had been buying bottled water unnecessarily for five years in order to avoid fluoride in their water.
A press release last week from the NHS contained the good news that the water fluoridation plant at Ennerdale water treatment works, which supplies fluoridated water to approximately 81,000 residents living in Workington, Whitehaven, Arlecdon, St Bees, Frizington, Salterbeck, Egremont, Cleator Moor, Beckermet and down the coast to Ravenglass and Bootle will be taken off line for essential cleaning and maintenance.
Ennerdale was refurbished at substantial cost to the taxpayer a decade ago but the hexafluorosilic acid that is used to fluoridate Lakeland water is extremely corrosive and a potential health and safety risk.

We hope that this temporary closure becomes permanent and that those with health problems such as kidney and thyroid disorders which can be aggravated by fluoride will be spared the worry and expense of having to buy bottled water.

The Great Culling with Chris Maple and Paul Wittenberger

2011-12-03T08:59:00.000Z

Graeme and Lillian Munro on toxic dentistry part 1

2011-12-02T09:33:00.000Z

Graeme and Lillian Munro speak out about the ongoing use of mercury and fluoride in dentistry and how it could be the cause of modern illnesses

Canada - City urged to consider fluoride ban

2011-12-02T09:26:00.000Z

City urged to consider fluoride ban
By Beatrice Fantoni, The Windsor Star December 2, 2011 12:00 AM
The Windsor-Essex County Environment Committee voted Thursday to recommend Windsor consider ending fluoridation of its tap water after learning that fluoride can harm wildlife and not just human beings.
"It's something that slipped under the radar," said Tamara Stomp, deputy mayor of Kingsville, referring to how governments have simply taken it for granted that fluoridation is safe.
A presentation by Fluoride Free Windsor and a medical geologist cited research showing that fluoride from tap water ends up in rivers and lakes, affecting aquatic species, and raising red flags about the effects on human beings - especially infants.
"Health Canada has failed to consider the long term effects (of fluoridation)," said Kimberly DeYong of Fluoride Free Windsor.
While Health Canada has set 1.5 milligrams per litre as an acceptable level for fluoride in tap water, it is far above the 0.12 milligrams level set by Environment Canada for the protection of aquatic species, she said.Windsor uses about 0.56 to 0.75 milligrams of fluoride per litre.
The majority of the tap water is sent back into the water system, DeYong said. About one per cent is used to drink.
The fluoride agent used in Windsor tap water is not a natural product, either, said Heather Gingerich, a medical geologist, but rather the industrial byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production.
Hydrofluorosilicic acid, as it is known, is corrosive and has to be handled very carefully - unlike naturally occurring fluoride - and contains contaminants such as arsenic and lead, Gingerich said. (The fluoride used in toothpaste is not the same type, she said.)
"It's time we looked hard at fluoridation," Coun. Alan Halberstadt said before the committee voted.
After the committee makes its recommendation to city council, the city will conduct its own research to determine whether to stop adding fluoride to the water.
Other committee members suggested comparing data showing the number of cavities in municipalities that don't fluoridate their water. If the numbers are comparable, then the issue is worth examining, said Shahbaz Ahmed.
Last month, Lakeshore voted to stop fluoridating its tap water after the town council examined research and concluded fluoridation did not present any additional benefits.
Tamara Stomp says communities have simply taken it for granted that fluoride is safe.

House of Commons

2011-12-01T12:15:00.005Z

Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what date he expects (a) Southampton city council and (b) New Forest district council to take over responsibility from the South Central Strategic Health Authority for deciding whether fluoride should be added to drinking water in their areas; [82660]

(2) what his policy is on the appropriateness of the decision of the South Central Strategic Health Authority to proceed with the fluoridation of drinking water in (a) Southampton and (b) part of the New Forest East constituency whilst (i) Southampton city council and (ii) New Forest district council remain opposed to it. [82664]

30 Nov 2011 : Column 960W

Anne Milton: South Central strategic health authority (SHA) has complied with the current legislation, which was in force in 2008 when the SHA conducted the consultation on the fluoridation scheme. Under regulation 5 of The Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations 2005, SHAs have to determine the outcome of a consultation “having regard to the extent of support for the proposal and the cogency of the arguments advanced ...”.

The Health and Social Care Bill currently before Parliament provides for responsibility for consultations on fluoridation to transfer to local authorities. The Bill includes powers to make new regulations which will include the criteria which local authorities should apply in determining when consultations on the continuance of existing fluoridation schemes should be conducted. We will be consulting on the content of these regulations before they are laid before Parliament.

Who will they consult? In 2004 the British Fluoride Society, the UK Public Health Association, the British Dental Association and the Faculty of Public Health published an extensive document called One in a Million that set out the benefits of fluoridation The Chief Medical Officer wrote the forward as he and all previous Chief Medical Officers have backed fluoridation as well as the British Medical Association. Not forgetting all Governments.

Record Number of Patients Registered with an NHS Dentist in Scotland

2011-12-01T08:54:00.002Z

Record Number of Patients Registered with an NHS Dentist in Scotland
Recent figures have revealed that patient registration has reached an all-time high in Scotland, with almost 4 million people now registered with an NHS dentist.
Figures published by ISD Scotland confirmed that patient registrations have increased and now stand at a record high. 73 percent of adults and 86 percent of children are now registered with an NHS dentist in Scotland.
The report also revealed that standards of oral health among children have improved and are now better than ever, with 70 percent of primary seven children showing no signs of decay.
The new figures show that an additional 1.36 million people have registered with an NHS dentist since March 2007. The report, which was compiled by the National Dental Inspection Programme, also highlighted improvements across the country, as all NHS boards have met the target of 60 percent of children showing no signs of decay for the first time ever.
Michael Matheson, public health minister, said that the results of the report are fantastic news. More dentists are now working in NHS dental practices across the country, which has improved access to dental services, leading to a knock-on effect on standards of oral health. Investment in children’s services has clearly paid off, as rates of decay are lower than ever before and more children are registered with an NHS dentist. All NHS boards have also met the national targets for the first time in history and Matheson praised the hard work of health bosses and dental professionals.

The proportion of primary seven children without any signs of decay has increased from 52.9 percent in 2005 to 69.4 percent in 2011.

Southampton PCT claimed they could not achieve any improvement in local children's teeth except by fluoridation. Why not, Scotland can?

USA - Wooster Water Warfare

2011-11-30T11:56:00.001Z

Gives both sides even has a waterwork's manager speaking about fluoridation.