.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Friday, September 19, 2014

UK - Bradford Much to be done to tackle high rates of tooth decay among district's children, report warns

HIGH rates of tooth decay among Bradford's under fives will again come under scrutiny by health chiefs next week.
Nearly half of all five years olds (46 per cent) have some tooth decay - significantly worse than the regional average of 34 per cent and the national average of 28 per cent.
And earlier this year the Telegraph & Argus revealed how three toddlers in Bradford have rotten teeth pulled out in hospital every week.
Now, a report to Bradford Council's Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee compiled by Bradford Public Health, Public Health England and NHS England warns that while there are signs of improvement - there is still much work to be done.
The problem, which has strong links to social deprivation, has been identified as a key health priority and the Council has invested in a number of programmes under the banner of Building Brighter Smiles, aimed at the under-fives.
Education programmes have started to discourage parents using sugary drinks in feeder bottles and to encourage regular teeth brushing with supervised brushing even taking place at some schools, the report states.
So far more than 16,700 under fives in the district have also undergone fluoride varnishing which takes place twice yearly at school nurseries.................

Parents must take blame for children's rotten teeth

PARENTS have a multitude of responsibilities to their children. They do not start and end at keeping them fed, clothed, warm and turning up to school on time.
Caring for their teeth is a key life skill, yet it appears too many of the parents in the city and in the north of the county are failing their children.
There will not be one single common cause, yet parents are the single factor for the appalling state of our children’s teeth.
Dentists have told us there may be some cultural issues and the non-fluoridation of our water supply is also being blamed.
There is, if we are honest, also the factor that too many parents take the easy route when it comes to feeding their children.
Sugary processed foods and drinks are teeth killers.
As with all aspects of diet, variety and balance is key.
Scooping armfuls of ready-to-go food and drink and shovelling it into little Johnny’s satchel and then not making him brush properly is failing your child.
And that type of attitude, where good oral hygiene is not valued, then tumbles down the generations.
As a parent you could fix that.
As a parent you must.

Photo: Harvard Study: Fluoridated Water Causes Cognitive Disorders
Read more : http://bit.ly/1dUECql

The study calls the effects from this chemical a ‘silent epidemic’ that mainstream media and many scientific papers have ignored.

Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (ISMMS) say that along with these numerous environmental toxins, fluoridated water is adding to the higher incident of both cognitive and behavioral disorders.

The study admits that there are numerous chemicals to blame – many of which are untested or ceremoniously approved by the FDA, USDA, and CDC without truly knowing their long term ramifications on human health – but that fluoride is a definite culprit.

Via -GET Involved! You live here-https://www.facebook.com/awakenthemind

American's seem to like that word a lot I would rather prefer the word  fluoride.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Unwanted Fluoride In Our Drinking Water

Many studies have shown that fluoride in our drinking water is more harmful than helpful. Unsure of the true purpose behind added fluoride to our water supply, I believe that awareness of this topic needs to be made! All over the web you can find various studies and charts showing the danger in fluoride in our water. I believe that it is our job to decide if fluoride in our drinking water should be allowed! We should have the choice whether or not we think it is beneficial to our health. Lets make a change and raise awareness of the beneficial and harmful factors of fluorine in our water.

Australia - Fluoride linked to brain damage

By John Lusk, Citizens Against Fluoridation Inc
 Sept. 18, 2014, 3:30 a.m.
 Public health officials never considered brain effects before implementing fluoridation of water supplies in the U.S. in 1945, and in Tasmania in 1953. This controversial policy was implemented under the pretext that fluoridation reduced tooth decay in children.
 Accumulating brain research suggests that adding fluoride chemicals en masse to public water supplies may be having a similarly disastrous effect on children’s brains as did tetraethyl lead in leaded petrol.
In the early 1990s, U.S. toxicologist Dr. Phyllis Mullenix predicted that fluoride could cause “IQ deficits and/or learning disabilities in humans”.
Subsequent human research confirms that fluoride can damage the foetal brain, adversely affect newborn babies’ behaviour, damage the central nervous system of fluoride-exposed workers, and affect performance on neurological assessment tests.
 And the studies keep coming. Forty one out of 48 human studies show fluoride reduces IQ and over 100 animal studies show fluoride can directly damage the brain by impairing memory and/or learning.
Early in 2014, a review paper in the The Lancet classified fluoride as one of the few chemicals known to damage the developing brain in humans. 
Why, then, for the past five decades, have our governments continued to ‘see no evil and hear no evil’ ?
 A March 30, 1983 letter from the “Office of Water”, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, provides some insight. It states, “By recovering by-product fluorosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost fluoride available to them.”
Dr. John Lusk (Citizens Against Fluoridation Inc.)

Port Macquarie

Echo letter

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Fluoride Action Network’s 5th Citizens’ Conference

Simply put Fluoride Action Network’s 5th Citizens’ Conference on Fluoride exceeded all our expectations. The Science day (Sept 6), Organization day (Sept 7) and the Lobby day (Sept 8) were all great – and to crown it all key participants had meetings with top officials at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) before the conference (Sept 4) and EPA Water Division officials after the conference (Sept 8). The details of these meetings will have to come later, suffice it now to say that Bill Osmunson DDS, William Hirzy PhD, and Chris Nidel, a lawyer, attended the HHS meeting and Quanyong Xiang PhD, Chris Neurath, William Hirzy PhD and myself attended the meeting with EPA.

It’s time we did something about sugar

A reappraisal of the quantitative relationship between sugar intake and dental caries: the need for new criteria for developing goals for sugar intake

Relationship between annual per capita sugar consumption and annual caries incidence in lower first molar teeth. Data based on 10,553 Japanese children whose individual teeth were monitored yearly from the age of 6 to 11 years of age. Data plotted on a log scale

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

More must be done to curb the nation’s sugar intake to reduce the “costly burden” of tooth decay, experts have said.

sugarPeople should get no more than 3% of their daily calories from sugars, experts said.
Current World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendations state that adults should get no more than 10% of their daily calories from “free” sugars. And the NHS says that “added sugar” such as sucrose, hydrolysed starch and honey should not make up more than 10% of the total calories people get from food and drink each day.
But researchers from University College London (UCL) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said 5% should be the absolute maximum with people aiming for a target of just 3%.
The comments come after they examined public health records from countries across the world in order to assess diets and dental health of large populations of both adults and children.
They found that sugar intake which accounted for 10% of energy intake, or calories, “induces a costly burden of caries (tooth decay)”.
“This largely preventable disease is still common,” the authors wrote in the journal BMC Public Health.
“Despite the use of fluoride and improvements in preventive dentistry, the burden of dental caries remains unacceptably high worldwide.”
Study author Aubrey Sheiham, emeritus professor of dental public health at UCL, said: “Tooth decay is a serious problem worldwide and reducing sugars intake makes a huge difference.
“Data from Japan were particularly revealing, as the population had no access to sugar during or shortly after the Second World War. We found that decay was hugely reduced during this time, but then increased as they began to import sugar again. Similarly, only 2% of people at all ages living in Nigeria had tooth decay when their diet contained almost no sugar, around 2g per day. This is in stark contrast to the USA, where 92% of adults have experienced tooth decay.”
The authors recommended a series of steps health officials could take to reduce sugar intakes including sugar taxes and reforms to food packet labelling.
Professor Philip James, honorary professor of nutrition at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, added: “We need to make sure that use of fruit juices and the concept of sugar-containing treats for children are not only no longer promoted, but explicitly seen as unhelpful. Food provided at nurseries and schools should have a maximum of free sugars in the complete range of foods amounting to no more than 2.5% of energy.
“Vending machines offering confectionary and sugary drinks in areas controlled or supported financially by local or central government should be removed. We are not talking draconian policies to ’ban’ such sugar-rich products, which are available elsewhere, but no publicly-supported establishment should be contributing to the expensive problems of dental caries, obesity and diabetes.
“The food industry should be told that they should progressively reformulate their products to reduce or preferably remove all the sugars from their products. New food labels should label anything above 2.5% sugars as ’high’.
“A sugars tax should be developed to increase the cost of sugar-rich food and drinks. This would be simplest as a tax on sugar as a mass commodity, since taxing individual foods depending on their sugar content is an enormously complex administrative process. The retail price of sugary drinks and sugar rich foods needs to increase by at least 20% to have a reasonable effect on consumer demand so this means a major tax on sugars as a commodity. The level will depend on expert analyses but my guess is that a 100% tax might be required.”

Fluoride's Brain Damage Studies Mounting

PR Newswire
NEW YORK Sept. 15 2014
NEW YORK Sept. 15 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Studies showing fluoride can lower IQ are just the tip of the iceberg in fluoride/neurotoxicity research according to evidence presented by attorney Michael Connett Fluoride Action Network's (FAN) Special Projects Director at the 5th Annual FAN Conference on September 6 2014.
Public health officials never considered brain effects before instigating fluoride's addition to water supplies starting in 1945 attempting to reduce children's tooth decay.
"Accumulating brain research suggests that adding fluoride chemicals en masse to public water supplies may be having a similarly disastrous effect on children's brains as did lead chemicals that were once added to gasoline" says Connett.
Human research now shows that fluoride can damage the fetal brain adversely affect newborn babies' behavior damage the central nervous system of fluoride-exposed workers and affect performance on neurological assessment tests.
And the IQ studies keep on coming. Forty one out of 48 studies show fluoride reduces IQ; 17 at levels the US EPA claims are safe.
Over 100 animal studies show fluoride can directly damage the brain; with another 30 animal studies showing fluoride impairs learning or memory -- including four published in 2014. In one study published this year in the journal Physiology & Behavior researchers found that fluoride "induces cognitive deficits and anxiety-depression-like behaviors in mice." (Liu 2014)
In the early 1990s toxicologist Dr. Phyllis Mullenix predicted that fluoride could cause "IQ deficits and/or learning disabilities in humans" based on the behavioral effects she observed in fluoride-exposed rats in her laboratory at the Harvard-affiliated Forsythe Institute in Cambridge Massachusetts.
Mullenix's prediction has now been confirmed by dozens of fluoride IQ and animal learning/memory studies. Mullenix's own research career however was left in shambles after reporting her findings. She was fired and years of government funding suddenly went dry.
The treatment of Mullenix a leading scientist at a Harvard-affiliated research institution "put a chilling effect on US research into fluoride's brain effects" says Connett.
Researchers in other countries however have continued investigating fluoride's toxic effects on the brain and this research is now starting to be heeded by western scientists. Earlier this year a paper in The Lancetclassified fluoride as one of the few chemicals known to damage the developing brain in humans.
More fluoride/brain information here: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/brain/

SOURCEFluoride Action Network

Daily Echo letter

Monday, September 15, 2014

Don't Swallow Your Toothpaste

Old TV program but worth seeing again.

India - High fluoride content in drinking water major public health risk

JAIPUR: High content of fluorides in drinking water are not only causing skeletal damages but it is also causing non-skeletal damages including infertility and mental disorders.

In the state, a total of 2,749 samples (up to August 2014) was taken from different sources of water in 18 different districts and found that 1,717 of them contain 1ppm to 3 ppm of fluoride, while 314 contain 3ppm-5ppm and 99 of them contain more than 5 ppm of fluoride.

According to health experts, 1ppm to 1.5ppm concentration of fluoride in water is the standard and recommended upper limit.

Water with high fluoride content put people at risk of getting affected with gastric problems, mental retardation, paraplegia and burning sensation during urination.

Health officers checked the content of fluoride in urines and they found that out of 7,649 samples, 5,869 have fluoride more than 1 ppm, which is above the permissible level.

"Fluorosis is a public health problem resulting in major health disorders like dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis and non-skeletal fluorosis besides inducing ageing. There are cases of infertility, mental disorders and others which we have found during the survey in areas with high fluoride contents in drinking water," Dr Ramavatar Jaiswal, state nodal officer for fluorosis said.

He said the harmful effects are permanent and irreversible in nature.........

Fluoride: Still Not Poisoning Your Precious Bodily Fluids!

We dentists are an evil group of sociopaths. When we’re not trying to kill you or give you chronic diseases such as multiple sclerosis with our toxic mercury saturated fillings, we are advocating for the placement of rat poison/industrial waste (i.e. fluoride) in your water supply by our governmental overlords. What is up with us?...................

He said it - lively debate with lots of comments.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

No Naturally Occurring Fluoride Is Added To Drinking Water – See What’s Really Added

hazmatThe resistance against water fluoridation might be a different story if the naturally occurring element of fluoride was added to our water. Fluoride is found in all natural waters, levels can be very high in groundwater, depending on a number of factors, such as the types of rocks and minerals of that region. Drinking water is the largest fluoride source.

Our tap water, on the other hand, is littered with hydrofluorosilicic Acid, a toxic industrial waste by-product that governments have been adding to our drinking water for over sixty years. Again, we’re not talking about the natural element of fluoride here, we are talking about industrial toxic waste................

5TH Citizens Conference on Fluoride was a success

Recent Victories
  • Oliver Springs, Tennessee–Water Board members in the community of 3,500 voted to stop adding fluoride to the town’s water at their September 4 meeting after more then two years of discussion and debate. The town’s fluoride stockpile is expected to run out this week. A water department employee initially raised concerns over the safety of the additive, and a majority of citizens polled on the issue opposed the practice. See short video report on the vote.           
  • Multnomah County, Oregon—County officials have decided to phase out a long-standing fluoride supplement program at local schools in favor of a “scientifically proven” and “more effective” sealant program. According to the county’s new Dental Director, “ Fluoride tablets are just not an effective way to deliver fluoride to children.” Multnomah County is home to the city of Portland, and the decision will impact about 28,000 children in 108 schools who will no longer be ingesting the neurotoxin on a daily basis.    
  • San Francisco, California—Approximately 7.4 million more people will now be warned not to reconstitute infant formula with fluoridated tap water or else risk overexposing their children to fluoride and giving them dental fluorosis. Clean Water California has reported that their members successfully convinced the East Bay and San Francisco municipal officials to add the warnings to annual water quality reports. Click here to learn how you can start your own infant warning campaign.   

5TH Citizens Conference on Fluoride was a success
FAN’s conference in Washington, DC this past weekend was a great success! We had a very good turnout, both for the conference and for our first fluoride lobby day. As you can see from the pictures posted below, we had more then two-dozen professional and citizen campaigners meeting with elected officials on Monday (not all are pictured), and our conference room was at capacity on Saturday, with standing room only for Dr. Quangong Xiang’s keynote address on IQ and fluoride.  
Early next week we will send out another bulletin providing a review of the conference that will include links to the power point presentations for each speaker.


While lobby day was a success in terms of the positive response we received from Congressional staffers and the positive experience our campaigners had, we still need to maintain the pressure on our elected officials if we ultimately want to get hearings on fluoridation.  If you haven’t done so already, please take a minute to send a letter to your Representative and Senators using our automated system.  Together we can accomplish our goal, but we must stay vigilant.

Stuart Cooper
Campaign Manager

Fluoride Action Network

Friday, September 12, 2014

NZ fluoridation report trashed by international reviewers

Fluoridation review unscientific and intellectually dishonest say international reviewers
Media release, NZFIS
Wellington, 11 September 2014
“Almost everywhere in the report, scientific evidence is selectively cited to produce a biased view of the evidence.”
“[T]his review does not meet the standards of critical scientific analysis. It is a political document.”
“This report is a clear example of cherry picking, where only select studies that support the 'safe and effective' viewpoint were cited.” I'm disgusted by how sloppy the NZ reviewers were. They were obviously politically motivated”, says Dr Hardy Limeback, former National Research Council Review panel member and head of preventive dentistry, University of Toronto.
“This report is such a joke that it does not deserve the time spent to critique it. Why do a scientific review on a political/propaganda report?”
These are the key observations of five independent international experts who were asked to peer review the fluoridation review recently conducted in secret by the Royal Society and the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor. Two of these peer reviewers were members of the US National Research Council panel that spent three years reviewing the research on fluoride’s toxicity – the most comprehensive review in history.
One key area of blatant misrepresentation identified by peer reviewers was the discussion on neurotoxicity, in particular the IQ studies.
The review falsely states that the Harvard meta-analysis found only a 0.45 IQ point drop due to fluoride, when it actually found a 6.9 IQ point drop. This error was publicised by the Harvard authors two years ago, after fluoridationists misrepresented the findings.
“[T]he NZ authors’ inability to understand this measure indicates they have little experience reading meta-analyses. This gives us little assurance they have correctly interpreted other scientific papers they reviewed for their report” said one peer reviewer.
“The report's incredible blooper on the Choi paper casts doubt on its authors' basic competence to interpret numerical data”, says Spedding Micklem PhD, co-author of The Case Against Fluoride.
The review also misleadingly claims that all the IQ studies were at very high levels of fluoride exposure, when many were at levels similar to those experienced in fluoridated NZ communities.
The review then gives significant weight to the Dunedin IQ study by Broadbent et al, even though it is a very poor study that failed to allow for significant confounding factors, and where the total exposure to fluoride was likely the same for both groups.
“The NZ report authors seem to be simply regurgitating false claims that have been made by fluoridation proponents, rather than actually reading the scientific studies they claim to be reviewing.” “[T]he NZ Review’s emphasis on Broadbent’s study reveals they are either biased or incompetent, or both”, says Chris Neurath, Research Director, American Environmental Health Studies Project.
In all this report sets out to do what Sir Peter Gluckman inadvertently admitted when its existence was exposed by New Health NZ – to confirm “what we know about the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.” This it has done, by cherry-picking studies that support that viewpoint, and ignoring or denying the validity of studies that show fluoridation to be not only ineffective, but unsafe. Documents obtained under the Official Information Act confirm that no review of toxicology studies was ever done for this report.
The review team was made up of hand selected fluoridationists to ensure this outcome. This practice was acknowledged in the otherwise pro-fluoridation book Fluoride Wars published in 2009. The authors state “A review of the membership of the various panels confirms that the expert committees that put together reports [over the course of 50 years] are rife with the names of well-known medical and dental researchers who actively campaigned on behalf of fluoridation or whose research was held in high regard in the pro-fluoridation movement.”
The NZ public, and local councils, deserve better than this scientific dishonesty and jacked-up ‘review’ panel. This review demonstrates why it is so important that councillors hear both sides of the evidence, not just one, as they did in New Plymouth and Hamilton. It also shows why fluoridation promoters are so scared of councils receiving such balanced information – they vote to reject fluoridation as a result, if they have the political courage.
“It is far from a REALLY critical review of the literature. It is NOT a meta analysis. It is no better scientifically than a dentist's review that is rubber stamped by uncritical referees and published in a profluoridation dental journal.”
The full peer reviews and comments can be found at www.fluoride-info-service.org/critiques/
NZFIS was formed to provide unbiased evidence-based science on the fluoridation issue, following formation of the Ministry of Health’s lobby group, The NZ Water Fluoridation Support and Coordination Service, publicly calling itself the National Fluoridation Information Service and pretending to give unbiased information.
NZFIS draws its information from NZ and international experts on this issue, including researchers ion this field.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Fluoride Affects Calcium Homeostasis

Fluoride Affects Calcium Homeostasis and Osteogenic Transcription Factor Expressions Through L-type Calcium Channels in Osteoblast Cell Line.

Author information


Osteoblast L-type voltage-dependent calcium channels (VDCC) play important roles in maintaining intracellular homeostasis and influencing multiple cellular processes. In particular, they contribute to the activities and functions of osteoblasts (OBs). In order to study how L-type VDCC modulate calcium ion (Ca2+) homeostasis and the expression of osteogenic transcription factors in OBs exposed to fluoride, MC3T3-E1 cells were exposed to a gradient of concentrations of fluoride (0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0 mg/L) in combination with 10 μM nifedipine, a specific inhibitor of VDCC, for 48 h. We examined messenger RNA (mRNA) and protein levels of Cav1.2, the main subunit of VDCC, and c-fos, c-jun, runt-related transcription factor 2 (Runx2), osterix (OSX), and intracellular free Ca2+ ([Ca2+]i) concentrations in MC3T3-E1 cells. Our results showed that [Ca2+]i levels increased in a dose-dependent manner with increase in concentration of fluoride. Meantime, results indicated that lower concentrations of fluoride (less than 5 mg/L, especially 2 mg/L) can lead to high expression of Cav1.2 and enhance osteogenic function, while high concentration of fluoride (10 mg/L) can induce decreased Cav1.2 and osteogenic transcriptional factors in MC3T3E1 cells exposed to fluoride. However, the levels of [Ca2+]i, Cav1.2, c-fos, c-jun, Runx2, and OSX induced by fluoride were significantly altered and even reversed in the presence of nifedipine. These results demonstrate that L-type calcium channels play a crucial role in Ca2+ homeostasis and they affect the expression of osteogenic transcription factors in fluoride-treated osteoblasts.

I gather it is bad for you but it is Chinese to me.

Legal Scholar: Is Fluoridation an Illegitimate Human Experiment?

by  on September 10, 2014 in News

waterfluoridation-overview1NEW YORKSept. 3, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ – “The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers and informed citizens,” argues Rita Barnett-RoseChapman University Associate Law Professor, (online August 2014), reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF).
Evidence of fluoride’s harm is ignored, downplayed or not studied; benefits exaggerated and informed consent disregarded. “Claims that fluoridation is not mass medication are unpersuasive,” she writes.
After scientists disproved the 1945 theory assuming ingested fluoride was essential for healthy teeth, fluoridation promoters newly speculate, without evidence, that fluoridation benefits low-income children who have the most decay and least access to dental care – a problem that persists today despite 7 decades of fluoridation. In fact, dental socioeconomic disparities have increased.
The National Research Council acknowledges significant fluoride health research has yet to be done – especially fluoride’s effect on the young brain.
Using case law, legal opinions and scientific reports, Barnett-Rose argues that fluoridation schemes allow public health officials to experiment on human subjects without their informed consent.
“Adding a drug to the water supply to treat or prevent the disease of tooth decay is unquestionably a medical intervention, and the fact that the risks of this drug are still being determined by public agencies, supports an argument that water fluoridation is an ongoing human medical experiment,” she writes.
“Continued imposition of compulsory water fluoridation schemes violates numerous legal and ethical human subjects’ research protocols,” argues Barnett-Rose.
“It is no longer acceptable for public health officials to simply dismiss the accruing negative data and to continue to insist that the levels of fluoride children and adults are receiving on a daily basis are without any serious health consequences,” she writes.
Attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President says, “Politics plays a heavy hand in fluoridation policy and promotion which seems to protect special interest groups, corporations and government agencies instead of the American public who are unwitting guinea pigs in this ongoing fluoridation experiment.”
Barnett-Rose writes: “Taking politics and long-entrenched agendas out of the mix, the risks of tooth decay, while perhaps still significant for a minority of individuals, are significantly outweighed by the human rights burdens, economic costs, and risks of other bodily harm for the majority of those affected.”

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

No mention of fluorosis. No mention of the contaminants put in with the fluoride.

Tuesday, September 09, 2014

NASA ISS Astronauts Swallow Toxic Fluoride Every Day!

Not a good idea if it is fluoride toothpaste.

NZ - ewsSportLifestyle & EntertainmentOpinionSubscribeAdvertiseContact UsWinRugby Excess sugar blamed for dental decay

Esme Palliser
SUGAR OVERLOAD: Oral health educator Esme Palliser, left, and adolescent oral health educator Maree Nevill with a wheelbarrow full of 11 5-kilogram bags of sugar in Richmond Mall
The region's oral health expert is generous to a fault in refusing to blame the parents of kids whose teeth have been munted by excessive sugar consumption.
It's all very well to take a non-confrontational line, but some of the cases seen of late by dental clinics suggest parenting that is lacking to the point of child abuse.
Nelson Marlborough principal dental officer Rob Beaglehole offers a distressing case to support his contention that sugar is one of this country's greatest and most insidious health issues.
A six-year-old boy was taken to a Blenheim dental clinic in excruciating pain with a mouthful of rotten teeth, caused by excessive consumption of high-sugar fizzy-drinks.
Beaglehole says the boy and his family had each been drinking 1.5 litres of cola a day. The youngster's oral health issues will result in ongoing problems.
Our top dentist says rotten teeth are having to be extracted from toddlers as young as 18 months, and more than $1-million a year is being spent on oral surgery under general anaesthetic for Nelson-Marlborough children.
He is right to suggest the money could be better spent. The issue is exacerbated in this region where, despite overwhelming scientific evidence in favour of fluoridation, the public water supplies are fluoride-free.
He's also right to suggest that canny marketing - including the use of images of the All Blacks drinking Coca-Cola - adds to the problem.
You don't see the country's most bankable role-models pushing tobacco. Yet here they are officially promoting another harmful-yet-legal product. Coca-Cola NZ would not be sponsoring the All Blacks without there being some payback.
But surely poor parenting is also a significant part of the problem. No adult resident in New Zealand can be unaware that obesity is a significant and growing health issue.
Understanding the importance of good diet is surely basic parenting. Only an idiot would see giving primary school-age kids a large bottle of coke to guzzle on each day as acceptable.
Just as bad was the side-story of a two-year-old fed coke from a baby bottle, to the point that the teeth had dissolved down to the gum-line and were bleeding.
According to Beaglehole, excessive sugar consumption is an even greater health threat than alcohol and tobacco. It can lead to obesity, diabetes and, of course, tooth decay.
Sugar is certainly all-pervading in the typical Western diet. Most food products sold in supermarkets and dairies contain added sugar, as a closer look at the labels will show.
Buying into an argument about which product is the most dangerous is pointless. Both sugar and alcohol have their place but can be dangerous - even deadly - when consumed too frequently and to excess. Tobacco is just bad, full stop.
- The Nelson Mail

USA - Fluoride in water system is dangerous

To the editor:
At the age of 65 in the last third of my life, I find it very disturbing that we haven’t corrected a 70-year-old error that is deadly, outdated and occurring every time we drink city water.
In Newburyport, like 73 percent of our country, water is medicated with a poison that is referred to as sodium fluoride, actually hydrofluorosilicic acid, a toxic industrial waste product from China. The results of Phyllis Mullenix’s latest published research on the metals and contaminants in the fluoridation chemicals used in Newburyport are both disturbing and terrifying. It turns out we treat our water supply not only with hydrofluorosilicic acid, but also in this toxic waste is: arsenic; lead; barium and aluminum.
Adding these toxins to our water supply is a blatant disregard for the law and the safety of all people ingesting this toxic slurry. The amounts of arsenic range from 4.9-56 ppm and lead (10.3 ppm). This is illegal and should be ceased immediately. Cancer-causing agents, dumped into our drinking water, is alarming and our city government needs to protect us. 
The public utility subcommittee of our Newburyport City Council that is responsible for the research on fluoride is now aware of this toxic condition and we implore they order the health department to cease fluoridation of our water supply through the use of the precautionary principle.
The Lancet, a prestigious Medical Journal, has classified fluoride as a neurotoxin, and is also classified as an endocrine disrupter. If you would like to know more about this term, look into our organization Health Roundhouse. We are an open association concerned with the health of our respective communities and our mission is to educate and empower people to make healthful decisions.
The Health Roundhouse and Groton Wellness are hosting a symposium on the evening of Sept. 23 at a place to be determined to discuss the practice of water fluoridation, as well as the impact of genetically modified organisms to our food chain. Everyone is invited to this evening entitled “GMO: What Do You know?” We all need to know more about the dangerous effects to our water and food supply.
If you observe white or yellow spots on your teeth, that is dental fluorosis. If you or someone close to you suffers from: thyroid dysfunction, diabetes, heart disease, osteoporosis, cancer or fibromyalgia, that is endocrine disruption. It is advisable to stop using any fluoridated products including toothpaste, mouthwash and tap water. In fact, you should not even bathe in it because fluoride absorbed through the skin is just as hazardous.

Taking this all into account, we must ask why our state Division of Oral Health still claims fluoride added to our municipal water supplies is one of the top 10 public health achievements of our time?

Monday, September 08, 2014

Meeting in Southampton

If you are local please print and distribute to all of your friends and forward the URL to all your contacts.

Sunday, September 07, 2014


Christy Dignam from the band Aslan wants government to Stop adding fluoride to our tap water as it is causing depression and causes osteoporosis. We are the only country in Europe that is still doing it and we need to Stop Adding it NOW.

Daily Mail - Is fluoride good for us?

Is fluoride good for us?

by DR JOHN BRIFFA, Daily Mail
Most of us put our trust in fluoride to help prevent tooth decay. It is a common ingredient in toothpaste and mouthwashes, and several countries, including large parts of the UK, add fluoride to the water supply.
Just last month, a study was published which reported that adding fluoride to table salt had reduced dental decay in Jamaica.
However, not all scientists are enthusiastic about fluoride. Recent evidence suggests it is not as effective in preventing tooth decay as was originally thought. In fact, it is believed fluoride treatment has the capacity to cause dental disease.
There is also some evidence that fluoride may increase the risk of other health issues, including weakened bones and thyroid conditions. So could adding fluoride to drinking water be doing us more harm than good?
Fluoride is a by-product of certain manufacturing practices (primarily the phosphate fertiliser industry). Precisely what lay behind the decision to add it to water supplies is not clear. Fluoride is, after all, a potentially toxic waste product.
When fluoridation of water started 60 years ago, there was no good evidence to suggest that fluoride might prevent tooth decay. However, partly as a result of later studies which suggested it might have tooth-protecting qualities, fluoridation of water became accepted practice.
More recently, the British government commissioned a review of the scientific literature on this subject, the results of which were published last year in the British Medical Journal. The York study concluded that the rationale behind the fluoridation of water is based on weak scientific evidence.
In addition, it found that the protection offered by fluoride is much less than previously thought: just one in six people drinking fluoridated water benefits from it.
Other studies show similarly poor results. In the largest dental health survey ever conducted in the U.S., fluoridation of water was found to protect less than 1 per cent of the total tooth surfaces in a child's mouth.
Studies conducted in Finland, East Germany, Cuba and Canada have found that the rate of dental decay does not increase when communities stop fluoridation.
And while the benefits of fluoride appear to have been overrated, it seems that the hazards of this substance have been downplayed.
For instance, the York study found that almost 50 per cent of individuals drinking fluoridated water exhibit a condition known as 'dental fluorosis' - a mottling of the teeth thought to be caused by the toxic effects of fluoride.
So, while fluoridation of water may prevent dental disease in about 15 per cent of the population, it seems to cause dental dis-ease in about half those treated. And if toxic effects are seen in the teeth, what damage may be done in the rest of the body?
The authors of the York study said they could find no real evidence for the toxic effects of
fluoride on the body, but other studies claim fluoride has the capacity to weaken bones and increase the risk of fracture.
There is also evidence that fluoride can accumulate in the pineal gland in the brain. Potentially, this could disrupt a range of body processes, including sleep.
FLUORIDE is also known to reduce the function of the thyroid gland (responsible for regulating the speed of the metabolism), and studies in animals show fluoride may bring on premature puberty.
Another question is the ethics of fluoridation. If fluoride does indeed reduce dental decay, should it not be classed as a medicine? If this is the case, then individuals who live in areas where the water is fluoridated are essentially being medicated without their consent.
When doctors prescribe drugs, we generally do so knowing the patient's sex, age, weight, medical history and current drug therapy.
They will judge whether a treat-ment is necessary, decide on an appropriate dosage and monitor the effects. None of this is true in the case of water fluoridation.
Ireland is the most heavily fluoridated country. About three-quarters of its water supply is treated with the chemical.
While the Irish have generally good dental health, studies show lower dental disease in non-fluoridated areas such as Wales and Scotland. In England, fluoridation depends on where you live.
Steps can be taken to reduce exposure to fluoride. Those living in a fluoridated region can avoid drinking tap water or filter their water.
For those wanting to avoid fluoride in toothpaste, many natural alternatives exist.
One particular brand based on aloe vera (called AloeDent) comes in several forms, one of which contains vitamin K which has been shown to be effective in preventing tooth decay. AloeDent can be found in health food stores.

Saturday, September 06, 2014

A4 Meeting Poster 4th October 2014 by hampshire Against

Daily Echo letter

Friday, September 05, 2014

Doctor Andrew Rynne, GP in Kildare wants government to stop water fluoridation

Oliver Springs votes to stop putting fluoride in city water