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

UK Against Fluoridation

Thursday, August 16, 2018

Wednesday, August 15, 2018

Canada - The pros and cons of removing fluoride from drinking water


Susan MacFarlane

Do you believe adding fluoride to drinking water is a pillar of public health? Or do you believe it’s time to stop the mass medication of the public via the water system?
As former general manager of Lambton Area Water Supply System, I was often asked whether I thought fluoride should be removed from the drinking water. My standard answer was, “I get paid not to have an answer to that question.”

Now that I’ve left LAWSS I’ve thought about the answer to this difficult question. For instance, I do accept that fluoridated drinking water is one of the greatest public health advancements of the 20th Century, one and has saved kids a lot of dental cavities.
But it’s also known ingesting fluoride, even at the approved dosages, is not the best way to deliver this method of cavity prevention to children.
I also believe ingesting fluoride may have negative health impacts on some children and adults. We also know fluoride in drinking water is only effective on children’s teeth up to a certain age, and that fluoride in drinking water can cause unsightly staining of the teeth, called fluorosis. I would suspect stained teeth could impact a child’s self-esteem.
A Multitude of studies have been done on both sides of the fluoride question. One troubling study showed fluoride addition in drinking water might reduce children’s IQs. I have also read fluoride ingestion might damage joints, connective tissue, the brain and testicles.

But another troubling study found the rate of DEFS (decay, extracted, filling and surface troubles) doubled for children in the City of Calgary after fluoride was removed from the drinking water.
In my opinion the million-dollar question is — does the positive impact of reducing cavities in all children outweigh the negative potential health effects for the population that doesn’t need to ingest fluoride, either because of age or the fact they already get regular fluoride treatment at the dentist? This is the difficult question that few people, including myself, are qualified to answer.
My suggestion would be to only remove fluoride from the water supply if we have a public health program in place to ensure all children have access to fluoride treatments, whether they go to a dentist regularly or not.

LAWSS spends about $150,000 a year on the fluoride delivery system and the chemical itself. Some have suggested that money could allow a public health program to deliver fluoride to school children.
How much would it cost to implement this public health program and for how many school years would it have to be delivered? Those questions would need to be answered before this pillar of public health could start to crumble.

Susan MacFarlane is an environmental engineer and former general manager of the Lambton Area Water Supply System.

Tuesday, August 14, 2018

Otago University hosts anti-fluoride event

https://player.fm/series/series-2410778/otago-university-hosts-anti-fluoride-event

USA - Rutland - Fluoride harmful to kids

The Rutland Herald posted an Associated Press article “ Experts question fluoride-free toothpaste” on Aug. 8 that left off the end of the article that had additional information needed to evaluate the validity of these so-called experts — one of which works for Crest toothpaste who worries the second most popular brand of toothpaste sold on Amazon is fluoride free.
These same so-called experts supported the belief that flossing teeth was ineffective in preventing tooth decay because the Associated Press said it was so. Using newspaper articles to determine national public policy is antidotal evidence and not valid scientific study. Antidotal evidence was also used in promoting fluoridation.
I ask that Rutland leadership review the science of fluoridation which now reveals fluoride to be a neurotoxin harmful to our children. Our children deserve clean drinking water in Rutland. Let us not support our city purchasing any more fluorosilicic acid contaminating our public water supply. Our children deserve better . Rutland can do better.
Kathleen Krevetski
Rutland

Sunday, August 12, 2018

Some obvious and not-do-obvious diet tips to keep your teeth healthy


Some obvious and not-do-obvious diet tips to keep your teeth healthyHere are some diet tips to keep your teeth healthy so that your smile stays healthy and bright. Some of these may not be surprising. At least one might be.

By Guest Contributor - 08 11 18 - 5:00 am
Some obvious and not-do-obvious diet tips to keep your teeth healthy
Here are some diet tips to keep your teeth healthy so that your smile stays healthy and bright. Some of these may not be surprising. At least one might be.
Some obvious and not-do-obvious diet tips to keep your teeth healthy
Here are some diet tips to keep your teeth healthy so that your smile stays healthy and bright. Some of these may not be surprising. At least one might be.
By Steven Freeman
You brush three times a day. You floss each night.

But then, admit it, you down a soda or you snack on a candy bar, undoing all that hard work and exposing your teeth to long-lasting harm.

Because when it comes to oral health, the No. 1 thing you can do to keep your teeth and gums strong is to watch what you eat.

It’s more important than brushing. It’s more important than fluoride. It’s even more important than visiting the dentist.

The reason: Almost all the problems that occur in the mouth are the result of bacteria. Bacteria causes cavities as well as gum disease, and the main food source for bacteria also happens to be prevalent in just about everything we consume, from bread to sauces and energy drinks.

That would be sugar.

It’s difficult to avoid sugar, but you need to stay away from it as much as possible.

Here are some diet tips to keep your teeth healthy so that your smile stays healthy and bright. Some of these may not be surprising. At least one might be.

Vegetables
The hard, leafy greens and broccoli may be difficult to chew, but they are jam packed with vitamins and minerals that can help you maintain healthy teeth and gums. As a bonus, they also help clean your teeth while you are chewing them.

Citrus
Vitamin C helps support the gums and ligaments around your teeth. This is why the British navy in the 19th century had lime and lemon trees on their ships — because the sailors’ teeth kept falling out without a constant source of vitamin C.

Sugar-free gum
No need to do a double take on this one. Sugar-free gum, while not exactly a nutritious alternative to kale and oranges, does have its advantages. The gum stimulates saliva, and saliva has anti-cavity properties. Gum also helps remove plaque from your teeth.

Of course, you still want to go to the dentist for regular checkups. This can help spot cavities when they are smaller and catch gum disease at its earliest stages.

Dr. Steven Freeman has authored multiple bestselling books, including “Why Your Teeth Might Be Killing You.” He is the owner of Elite Smiles, a dental office in St. Augustine, Florida.

Bisbee's water no longer fluoridated, going against national trend ...


https://tucson.com/...fluoridated.../article_a25aa31f-138a-56a0-91ef-315d1683d854.h...

8 hours ago - When the city of Bisbee decided to remove fluoride from its water supply earlier this year, the vote was unanimous but there was no input from any public health ..


Unable to access because of daft EU regulations
Must find a free VPN

451: Unavailable due to legal reasons

We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact jspitz@tucson.com or call 800-695-4492.

Saturday, August 11, 2018

London Canada letter

Fluoride not safe

There has never been question or debate about the devastating harms that the fluoride ion, from any of its sources, can have on the human body and nervous system. The only question was whether or not the concentrations in fluoridated water were small enough to entirely avoid those negative effects. Research in the last five years has made it clear that this is not the case, and that ingesting fluoride by drinking “optimally fluoridated” water, is causing harm. It is time for us to admit that a poison is a poison and stop putting it in our water.
When we discovered that leaded gasoline was causing harm to children inhaling the fumes as they walked to school, we stopped adding lead. We didn’t reduce the amount of lead, call it optimally leaded gasoline and say there was no evidence to proved it was still harmful.
Pam Killeen

Australia - Oberon - Letter | We just want democracy when it comes to fluoride

ON Tuesday evening, July 17, I attended the Oberon Council meeting where the decision was made to fluoridate the town water supply. 
I had to leave the meeting prior to the vote taking place as I was leaving the next morning for a short holiday and I had yet to pack my bag.
Over the last few months there has been a gathering of how the people of Oberon felt about having their water supply fluoridated. We all respect that we may have different views, however the percentage of 69 per cent saying no is a significant number.
Democracy is what we ask from all levels of government: federal, state and local. Democracy is provided by allowing the community to have their say and representatives from all three levels of government should never forget the reason they have been elected. 
All we, the people, ask for is democracy. We are tired of being told how to live and what to do without any consideration for our point of view.
I had been speaking with our mayor Kathy Sajowitz well before the decision night and I had told her that I knew, along with many other residents in Oberon, how the vote would go. 
I was also prepared to provide the names of who would vote for and those who would vote against. 
I had not been attending council meetings and so the information I had was from the people of Oberon and I was told the vote would go 5 to 4 for fluoridating the water supply. At that early time, it was not known that Cr Doney would not be there.
I wonder whether we here in Oberon have extrasensory powers or are we able to read minds? I will leave the decision on this up to you, the readers. 
The mayor had assured me that it was impossible for people to know how the vote would go because there had been no discussion on the matter of fluoridation. 
And yet the information was correct and even the names were correct, excluding Cr Doney.
Could it be that perhaps the information sessions was where councillors had been having some discussion, because there has been nothing in council business papers?
Are you aware that council holds information sessions prior to the council meeting? I am told it is not obligatory for councillors to attend the information sessions. I am also told the community cannot attend these sessions.
On the morning of July 18, I sent off an email to our mayor letting her know I was sadly disappointed and angry. 
I was angry because it is not so long ago that there was a battle going on in Oberon to save our local government and we were saying we wanted our own local government so we could have real democracy.
Do you believe our local government care about what the people wanted? When around 70 per cent – and the correct figure, it seems, is only 69 per cent – said no to the fluoride being added to the town water supply.
Councillors, we fought the state government and we fought for democracy and the right to have our own local government which would represent the views of the community. 
Councillors, can you now see that we believe we have been duped? Duped because it seems you fell at the first hurdle. It seems to us that you have forgotten all the promises you made and the most important matter of all to represent the views of the community. 
Democracy is decided on by the majority and the majority was 69 per cent.
I spoke with our mayor some time back when this issue first came to light and suggested if ever there was an issue that needed a public meeting, it was fluoride. 
Council, it seems, were only going to survey those who attended the strategic plan meetings held in Oberon, Black Springs, Burraga and O’Connell. 
Generally, these special meetings have not been proven to be a real crowd-gatherer. 
It took the group fighting against fluoridation to get the council forms out to people so they could have their say and then it seems the 300 or so people surveyed by phone was more important.
I was one who was phone surveyed and can anyone tell why they had to know what education standard you had reached? 
Does it require tertiary education to know if you drink town water or not?
I ask readers to look at the names of those who voted yes to fluoridate Oberon’s water supply: mayor Kathy Sajowitz, Andrew McKibbin, Don Capel, Mark Kellam and Mick McKechnie. 
Did you vote for these councillors? Did you expect that they would provide democracy and represent the views of the majority? 
Do you feel these councillors knew what the community wanted?
Now look at the councillors who voted no to fluoridate Oberon’s water supply: deputy mayor Kerry Gibbons, Clive McCarthy and Brenda Lyon. We believe Ian Doney would most likely have voted with these three (at least that is what was told by the mind-readers). 
Did you vote for these councillors? I believe these three considered the majority views of the community. 
A special thanks to Brenda Lyon, who on the night of the vote asked questions and spoke well. Thank you, Brenda (even though without a microphone it was difficult to hear you properly).
I can only say I am saddened and disappointed. My faith and trust in our local government is, for the time being, shattered. Perhaps we are lucky it is only a three year term. 
I had hoped for better - no, more than that, I wanted better. I wanted the councillors to represent the majority view of the people of Oberon. To show the state government we are a force to be reckoned with. We will fight for our rights and our right to choice.
I heard one speaker on the night say those who do not want the water fluoridated can buy bottled water.
Those who do want fluoride can always purchase good fluoride toothpaste (however, be warned, a pharmacist might not want to sell it to you, especially if the town water supply is fluoridated) or visit a dentist and have a topical application applied directly to your teeth (and this way you do not remove any person’s right to choice).
Fluoride is not the magical fix-it-all. You still need to have good dental health and not eat or drink the wrong foods or liquids.

Marjorie Armstrong



Published: 6 hours ago
This is video of me some years ago attempting to explain to my cities council member the dangers of fluoride

Friday, August 10, 2018



It's a wonder he isn't banned from Youtube! I agree with a lot of what he says.

Not sure about the devil but evil in the world is self evident - Ying and Yang. We do have a choice or do we?

USA - Chew on this: Potsdam should continue adding fluoride to its water supply


For the past year, officials in Potsdam have pondered whether to continue adding fluoride to the village’s water supply.
Hydrofluosilicic acid vapors created through this process have eroded the equipment that makes up this system. As members of the village Board of Trustees have reviewed plans on how to proceed, they’ve heard from some residents opposed to this long-standing practice.
This is unfortunate as fluoridated water is credited by medical authorities with improving dental health for seven decades. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that fluoridated water continues to play a vital role in preventing tooth decay.
An engineering report from Environmental Design and Research presented trustees with several options for addressing the problem. They may vote on this issue at their Aug. 20 meeting.
“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends having 0.7 milligrams per liter of fluoride in water, which reduces demineralization of tooth enamel and increases remineralization rates in the early stages of tooth decay. The village’s water naturally has 0.2 milligrams per liter, so 0.4 milligrams per liter of fluoride needs to be pushed through valves, pumps and drums and finally into the water supply,” according to a story published Sunday by the Watertown Daily Times. “Environmental Design and Research offered three options: doing nothing, replacing equipment with more of the same, or using a different technique known as a sodium fluoride saturation system. The latter would be the most expensive option, but would ensure lower maintenance costs and less acute health impacts. Also with the new technique, less vapor would escape, thus requiring fewer repairs.”
Trustees could choose a fourth option, which would be to discontinue adding fluoride to the water supply. We urge them to keep fluoridating the village’s water by approving the plan to spend some more now and save on needed repairs down the road.
Opponents of fluoridated water have attributed many evils to this practice. But every credible health organization, particularly in the field of dentistry, has favored continuing to add fluoride to water. Experts have pointed out that claims made of the ill effects have lacked sufficient evidence.
Fluoridated water has done wonders for Americans, and Potsdam officials should maintain the status quo. When a process has been proven to be this effective, altering it based on fear-mongering would be absurd. Potsdam should update its equipment, reduce the need for future repairs and help residents keep their teeth as healthy as possible.

Avatar
It's sad that the editorial staff considers science fear-mongering. Politics, not science, supports fluoridation. While many organizations may endorse fluoridation and they did so on the say-so of dentists, few if any did original research. Many organizations have withdrawn their support of fluoridation over the years. The most notable is the National Kidney Foundation because of the scientific evidence shows that a malfunctioning kidney does not excrete fluoride properly. Also, health and dental organizations now caution against the routine mixing of infant formula with fluoridated water if you want to prevent dental fluorosis (discolored teeth) in newborns growing teeth. I wonder if this editorial board asked to see the actual science proving that fluoridation is safe for everyone who drinks it or did they rely on a pro-fluoridation lobbyiest masquerading as a kindly neighborhood dentist to tell them what to think?

Thursday, August 09, 2018

USA - North County

Fluoride study
Wednesday, August 8, 2018 - 5:56 am
In response to “Cite Your Sources” which appeared in the Aug. 1-7 issue of North Country This Week: The trusted Cochrane group of researchers could not find any quality evidence to prove fluoridation changes the “existing differences in tooth decay across socioeconomic groups.” Neither could they find valid evidence that fluoride reduces adults’ cavity rates nor that fluoridation cessation increases tooth decay. Fluoridation may reduce cavities in children (2 primary teeth or 1 permanent tooth). But Cochrane cautions these studies have “high risk of bias” and were mostly done before preventive measures were widespread, e.g. fluoridated toothpaste and sealants. There is clear evidence that small amounts of fluoride, at or near levels added to U.S. water supplies, present potential risks to the thyroid gland, according to the 2006 National Research Council's (NRC) first-ever published review of the fluoride/thyroid literature. Fluoride impairs thyroid hormones at lower water concentrations than dentists claim is safe, according to “Impact of Drinking Water Fluoride on Human Thyroid Hormones: A Case Control Study,” published in Scientific Reports (Feb 2018).

Wednesday, August 08, 2018

ADA

ADA News Logo


CDC seeks comments on proposed control range for fluoride in water
August 07, 2018
The Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is seeking comments on a proposed updated operational control range around optimal fluoride concentration in community water systems.
  
In 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services recommended a then-newly calibrated ratio of fluoride to water at .7 mg/L, or parts per million. The ADA supported the recommendation.

Now the government said it is proposing the operational control range of .6 mg/L to 1.0 mg/L "based on analysis of available data." 

Managers of adjusted water systems at state and local levels need the updated operational control range to ensure the maintenance of consistent monthly averages in fluoride concentration that maximize prevention of tooth decay, the department said in its call for comments.

The department is accepting comments on the existence of any "evidence-based concerns about the appropriateness of the proposed operational control range."

For more information or to submit a formal commentclick here.

Daily Mail

Spike in Americans using toothpaste WITHOUT fluoride: Dentists urge people to stop 'ridiculous' trend as they warn 'brushing alone is note enough'
  • Fluoride has been widespread in toothpaste and drinking water since the 1960s
  • The chemical is thought to help fight cavity by bolstering tooth enamel 
  • But some dentists and patients say the simple act of brushing is enough 
  • A review of studies by the University of Washington suggests there is little proof that this is the case 
  • Still, dentists remain divided and fluoride-free toothpaste companies are flourishing 
Dental health experts worry that more people are using toothpaste that skips the most important ingredient - fluoride - and leaves them at a greater risk of cavities.
Most toothpastes already contain fluoride, but in recent years, some dentists have suggested that the chemical may be superfluous and even harmful.
While health authorities recognize fluoride as a cavity blocker, the internet is dotted with claims, often from 'natural' toothpaste marketers and alternative medicine advocates, that fluoride-free toothpaste also prevents cavities.
Even dental health authorities can't agree about toothpaste and fluoride, but a recent review of past studies done by researchers at the University of Washington suggests that the simple act of brushing is not enough.........................

Tuesday, August 07, 2018

N.Z. MPs Urged to Ignore ‘Merchants of Doubt’ on Fluoride

MPs Urged to Ignore ‘Merchants of Doubt’ on Fluoride

MPs and Public Urged to Ignore ‘Merchants of Doubt’ on Fluoridation

For Immediate Release
The last-ditch campaign full of misinformation by opponents of fluoridation is exactly the reason MPs need to get behind the bill currently awaiting second reading, according to Daniel Ryan, the president of Making Sense of Fluoride. (The bill will hand decision-making on fluoridation to DHBs rather than local authorities.)
Mr Ryan says the group called Rethink Fluoride is associated with Fluoride-Free NZ which has long waged a campaign of misinformation and scaremongering, with this latest campaign headed by a pair of retired renegade dentists. Previous campaigns using the same tactics have prompted reprimands from bodies such as the Dental Council and Advertising Standards Authority.
“The public can be reassured that the claims of this group including the ones citing ‘new information’ have no basis in fact,” says Mr Ryan. “Thousands of rigorous studies - including recent large-scale data from Sweden and Canada (as well as our own famous Dunedin Study) confirm that community water fluoridation improves oral health and does not lower IQ – or cause any other health problems.”
“These opponents rely on the lack of specialised expertise of the media and the public to promote an ideological view that denies the evidence. Compare that to the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective way to improve the dental health of children and adults, no matter what people eat or how often they brush,” adds Mr Ryan.
He says the complex, eyeball-glazing and often counterintuitive nature of science is exactly why the bill before Parliament is vital, to ensure that merchants of doubt like FFNZ have their claims evaluated by the appropriate experts.
“In these days of fake news, it’s more important than ever for MPs to put their full support behind fluoridation, secure in the knowledge that they will be helping everyone have better oral health, especially our most vulnerable - who benefit the most from the proven effectiveness of fluoridation in public water supplies.”
Fluorosis surely is a problem? Merchant of doubt?
Most fake news is from the traditional media.

Why Our Drinking Water Is Killing Us

............................So a product that pollutes the bodies of water on earth and contains cancerous elements is allowed in our public drinking water. Water is essential for human survival and your body needs it to function properly. The body is made up of seventy percent water so the water you put in your body will basically determine your overall health.
"There have been over 34 human studies and 100 animal studies linking fluoride to brain damage," according to the Institute for Vibrant Living, including lower IQ in children. Studies have also shown that fluoride toxicity can lead to a wide variety of health problems including dementia, arthritis, bone fractures, increased tumor and cancer rate, disrupted immune system, bone cancer, genetic damage and so on. Cancer and arthritis are conditions that affect a good percentage of Americans on a daily basis. The fact that our drinking water contains elements that lead to cancer and countless other problems American citizens face on a daily basis is a disrespect to the integrity of people everywhere.
I see countless commercials regarding cancer research and the ongoing fight against cancer, but none of them ever mentioned that our drinking water contributes to the cancer our loved ones face everyday. I can imagine that the average person would never dream that the same water that's suppose to help them is slowing leading them to their own demise. It isn't easy information to swallow. Furthermore, if we wish to eradicate the diseases that plague our human condition, we have to stop putting harmful fluoride in our basic essentials of living. We all have the choice to take action, or do nothing. Fluoride is obviously a threat to human health and needs to be removed.

YP Letters: Fluoridation is old hat... cleaning teeth is better

From: A Wills, Dulverton Road, Ruislip, Middlesex. THANK you for your article on fluoridation (The Yorkshire Post, July 31). I think that Hull City Council’s Cabinet member Phil Webster is very wise to point out that adding the chemical fluoride to tap water supplies is “too expensive, undemocratic and unproven and is forced medication by the State”. The biggest fall in tooth decay is in non-fluoridated Scandinavia! Medication should be prescribed individually according to a person’s weight and general health – not given to whole communities with no control over dosage received. The chemical used in water fluoridation is fluorosilicic acid – toxic waste from the chimney scrubbers of phosphate fertiliser factories.

Too much fluoride can cause permanent staining of teeth – called dental fluorosis. Scotland has greatly reduced tooth decay with its “ChildSmile” scheme where young children clean their teeth properly every day in school. Simple, safe and cheap. Fluoridation is old technology, as only about one per cent of tap water is drunk by children. Most of the water supply is used by industry and for washing and toilet flushing – so most of the added fluoride is public money down the drain!


Monday, August 06, 2018

F.A.N. Newsletter

Jane Austen would have a field day with an analysis of the emotions and behavior of the opponents and proponents of water fluoridation.
Opponents of fluoridation come from the head, the heart and the body.
Those who approach evidence with an open mind, quickly find evidence that this practice has the potential to cause more harm (especially to the developing brain, Bashash et al, 2017) than benefit (only a small and questionable reduction in tooth decay, Cochrane, 2015).
Those who approach the matter with the heart and their conscience, only need one argument: no government has the right to force the citizens under its jurisdiction to take a medicine without their informed consent. Unthinkable; no other argument is necessary.

Then there are others who discover the unacceptability of this practice via the evidence presented by their own bodies combined with careful observation. These are the people who are very sensitive to fluoride’s toxic effects. Their symptoms range from skin complaints (rashes, acne) through to skeletal and muscular conditions (pains in the joints) to neurological complaints (headaches) and tiredness not relieved by sleep. Sometimes after years of unsuccessful treatment of these conditions by a variety of doctors, these citizens discover that their own bodies are sensitive instruments to fluoride detection. They discover that their symptoms disappear as they avoid fluoride and reappear when they accidentally get re-exposed to fluoride. They are totally convinced, but medical professionals too often treat them like idiots. After 70 years of such complaints not one health body in the fluoridated world has done the decent and professional thing and investigated what they are content to call “anecdotal” reports with carefully designed double-blind studies.

In reality, toxicologists would expect that, if you expose a large population to a known toxic substance, a small percentage of the population will experience toxic effects. These people represent the sensitive tail end of the normal distribution of response. This is precisely why you should never deliberately expose the whole population to a toxic substance through the water supply. These canaries are exactly what you would expect.

Often those affected by this combined knowledge of physical sensitivity and professional indifference become fluoridation’s most vociferous and persistent opponents. I am thinking of the late Dr. Albert Burgstahler (for whom Dr. George Waldbott diagnosed his poor thyroid function to fluoride sensitivity); to Audrey Adams whose autistic son Kyle is supersensitive to fluoride; to Karen Spencer who after many years of painful symptoms--and failed professional diagnosis–finally identified herself that fluoride was the cause…and many others too numerous to identify.
And now comes Melissa Gallico who discovered that her acne cleared up when she went to unfluoridated Scotland (and other unfluoridated countries) and returned when she returned to the USA. She has published a book on her experiences.
And Melissa Gallicao has now produced a brilliant and creative video.
It is presented as a fairytale. In just 7 minutes and 16 seconds she combines science, poetry, history, logic and common sense to deliver a really powerful punch against this outdated practice.
With the clues provided in the title, I think our readers can finish this essay when it comes to what drives our opponents.

Sincerely, 

Paul Connett

USA - NY - Potsdam village board will vote on fluoridation before end of September

Potsdam village board will vote on fluoridation before end of September
Sunday, August 5, 2018 - 5:10 pm
By CRAIG FREILICH
POTSDAM – The village board will vote on whether or not to continue fluoridating municipal water either at its August or September meeting.
Village Administrator Greg Thompson said that after a meeting with officials from Walden, New York, which voted to drop its fluoridation program, and with a statement to the Board of Trustees from the St. Lawrence County Board of Health strongly supporting fluoridation, he feels the board will have all the information they need to make a decision on the issue.
“Residents of St. Lawrence County are especially likely to suffer if the Village decides to stop providing this well-established safety measure,” said Board of Health President Dr. Andrew Williams in a notice to Potsdam. The board “strongly urges” the village to continue fluoridation.
“You can read reports all day long. There are thousands for and thousands against fluoridation,” Thompson said. He said the best advice he got from the representatives from Walden was to tell the board to “vote your heart and follow through.”
Mayor Ron Tischler, Trustee Abby Lee and Thompson met with officials from Walden . seeking information on what would be required of the Potsdam board if they choose to discontinue fluoridation, as Walden has.
“It was good to talk to someone who’s been through the process, and what the pitfalls are,” Lee said.
“They told us about their process, their thinking on it. They were very helpful.”
Advice from Walden
In particular, she said, they warned of the changing nature of applicable law, which has changed since Canton ceased fluoridation in 2003 and even since Walden voted to end treatment last October.
The state Department of Health has outlined what steps would have to be taken to end the water treatment, but since the law governing the process, Public Health Law 1100-a, has been undergoing changes, the department’s best advice to Potsdam has been to seek the help of lawyers, Lee said.
What is clear, she said, is that if the village decides to cease fluoridation, there is a process that must be followed, but if they simply replace the existing equipment and continue fluoridation, it is a much simpler operation.
Fluoridation of water for prevention of tooth decay has been a controversial topic for decades, with opponents claiming to have strong evidence that adding fluoride to municipal water is dangerous enough that it could compromise the health of people in communities where fluoridation is done.
But the county Board of Health says the preponderance of evidence, from informed and authoritative sources, overwhelmingly indicates of the benefit easily outweighs the little evidence of potential harm.
The county Board of Health has comprehensively laid out its position, which county Public Health Director Dana Olzenak McGuire has endorsed.
“You get where you can be swayed one way or the other very easily,” Thompson said. “There are very smart people on either side of the argument.”
The Board of Trustees awaits a report from consulting engineers on the condition of the current equipment and what would be required to replace it.
The board approved in April the expenditure of $9,900 for a study from Environmental Design and Research (EDR) laying out the cost options the village has if they wish to repair, replace or remove the 35-year-old equipment that has been adding fluoride to the village’s water.
The aim of the program has been to help stem tooth decay, especially in children.
County Board of Health Weighs In
The statement from the county Board of Health is advising Potsdam to keep with water fluoridation. The board’s statement follows:
“The St. Lawrence County Board of Health strongly urges the Village of Potsdam to continue fluoridation of water in the village.
“Fluoridation is a well-established, safe measure to improve the oral health and general health of children and adults in the community. Although dental health has improved for many Americans in recent decades, tooth decay remains the most common chronic childhood disease – five times more prevalent than asthma. Untreated tooth decay can undermine children’s ability to sleep, grow and learn. The health of our teeth and gums affects our ability to speak, eat, and communicate, and it can also impact our self-esteem, school or work performance, and social life. Decay and other dental problems can cause a person’s overall physical health to decline.
“Residents of St. Lawrence County are especially likely to suffer if the Village decides to stop providing this well-established safety measure. Thirty-seven percent of adults in our county report not visiting a dentist for a routine cleaning within the past year and 40% of our children have untreated tooth decay. Furthermore, emergency room visits related to untreated tooth decay have increased 161% during the last ten years.
“Fluoridated water is effective, because it keeps a low level of fluoride in the mouth, specifically in the dental plaque and saliva, all day. Even with the use of other fluoride products, such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, fluoridated water reduces tooth decay by 25% among children and adults. In communities with water fluoridation, school children have, on average, about 2 fewer decayed teeth compared to children who don’t live in fluoridated communities.
“The efficacy and safety of fluoridation of water is not simply a matter of opinion. The extensive scientific research on the matter has been reviewed, leading the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Dental Association, Mayo Clinic, American Medical Association and many other respected medical and health organizations to recognize and endorse the health benefits of fluoridation. Most oral health problems are preventable. Fluoridation has been identified as the most feasible and cost-effective method of delivering fluoride to all members of the community, regardless of age, education, or income. These advantages combined with fluoridation’s contribution to dramatic declines in both the prevalence and severity of tooth decay led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to name water fluoridation as one of ten great public health achievements of the 20th century.
“The St. Lawrence County Board of Public Health strongly supports maintaining the fluoridation system for the village of Potsdam.
“Please feel free to contact the Board of Health with questions you may have: Andrew F. Williams, MD FACP (315) 386-2325,” the statement concludes.
On the other side of the argument, Dr. Paul Connett, a former member of St. Lawrence University’s chemistry faculty, has been campaigning against fluoridation for decades. He spoke last week at a meeting in Potsdam laying out his case, claiming the danger to health by added fluoride outweighs any potential dental health benefit.
Thompson said there is “no reason to delay a vote” by the trustees.
He said that will come either at the next meting Aug. 20 if no hearing is required, or if one is required, the board will at that meeting set the hearing date for the Sept. 4 meeting, after which the vote will take place.



All very convincing if you didn't know better. No mention of fluorosis or naming what they put in the water. It isn't just natural fluoride. No mention that non fluoridated communities have the same level of dental health.
What about the affect on thyroid function look at all those obese citizens of the USA and here in the West Midlands.

Sunday, August 05, 2018



Seems very genuine, she is asking for comments maybe you would like to reply on her youtube  page.

Saturday, August 04, 2018



I agree with his views on vaccination and fluoridation. Not the bible message but it might help to believe.

Friday, August 03, 2018

On Flavonoids and Cardiovascular Disease

On Flavonoids and Cardiovascular Disease

www.robertbarrington.net/
17 hours ago - Fluoride is ubiquitous in the foods and drinks that humans consume. Fluoride can also be present in the air as pollution in the form of hydrogen fluoride.

Lots of info - about the calcium remember my post about magnesium and K2 needed.

BDA slams water fluoridation ‘myths’ and ‘alternative facts’ - they would wouldn't they.

The BDA slams comments made by Hull’s finance chief councillor, Phil Webster, on water fluoridation.
Yorkshire Water is carrying out a water fluoridation feasibility study, costing £68,000.
Former chairman of the health and wellbeing board, Councillor Colin Inglis, believes adding fluoride to drinking water the best way to tackle the poor oral health found in Hull and the East Riding.
When questioned on the scheme, Mr Webster said he wouldn’t accept the spending of ‘one more penny on this foolhardy scheme’, with ‘no appetite for it whatsoever’.
He went on say it was ‘too expensive, undemocratic and unproven’.

Fluoridation bids

The British Dental Association (BDA) has backed the fluoridation scheme suggesting Government should guarantee financial support to councils exploring proposals.
Public Health England suggests fluoridation could result in a £22 return on investment for every £1 spent after 10 years.

‘The UK Government’s own models show fluoridation could shave millions off the bill for extracting kids’ teeth in hospitals,’ the BDA’s health and science chair, Russ Ladwa, said.
‘Sadly cash-strapped councils have been given no support to even consider the single most cost-effective intervention.
‘Councillors have a responsibility not to peddle myths or “alternative facts”.
‘Fluoridation is a proven method of reducing the huge burden of childhood decay.
‘Yes, town hall accountants lack resources, but they must not use that as basis to misrepresent a clear scientific consensus.
‘If Hull waves a white flag it will be a victory for the professional doom mongers, that will only discourage communities across England from exploring proposals that could save hundreds of thousands of children and adults from needless pain and distress.