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

UK Against Fluoridation

Thursday, June 30, 2005

Board wants city to reduce fluoridation

Published: June 30. 2005 12:00AM
By John Briggs
Free Press Staff Writer

The Burlington Board of Health voted 3-2 Wednesday night to recommend to the City Council that Burlington continue fluoridating its drinking water but consider reducing the amount of fluoride used.
(Click above for link)

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

My Letter

Julian Lewis my MP has confirmed he sent my letter to the Chief Executive Hampshire & IOW S.H.A for their consideration and comments.
Apparently Gareth Crudace has been transferred to the Dept of Health and Ian Carruthers has taken over the role as well as covering Dorset.
Dorset are not asking for fluoridation.

Parliamentary Questions 27 June 2005

27 Jun 2005 :
Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment she has made of the correlation between dental health in five-year-olds and their social-economic grouping, broken down by county in each year since 1997; [4718]

(2) what role fluoridation of water plays in improving dental health; and whether the Government plans to review the level of fluoridation in tap water. [4719]

Ms Rosie Winterton: National dental health surveys are carried out every 10 years; the latest survey is for the year 2003. Results and comparisons with the results of the 1993 survey are available on the Office for National Statistics (ONS) website at www.statistics.gov.uk/children/dentalhealth/. Results are not available for areas as small as counties because of the small sample size, but regional results for five-year-old children are given in tables 1.5 and 1.6 for the proportion of children with obvious decay experience and for the mean number of teeth with obvious decay experience.

A separate report on this survey has been prepared on social factors and oral health in children, which analyses the United Kingdom figures. This is also available on the ONS website. The report includes analyses of tooth decay by an assessment of deprivation of the school together with analyses by socio-economic status of the household.

The findings of these surveys confirm that there is a strong correlation between dental disease and social and economic deprivation, which we are addressing in connection with implementation of the Government's commitment to reduce health inequalities. The fluoridation of water offers the best prospect for reducing inequalities in oral health. Changes made in the Water Act 2003 to the legislative framework governing fluoridation have made it a realistic option for strategic health authorities to consider for improving the oral health of their populations.

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Claim: Doctor fudged fluoride findings

By Jessica Heslam
Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - Updated: 05:00 AM EST

An environmental watchdog group plans to file a complaint today with federal medical authorities claiming a Harvard doctor is fudging research findings.
The Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Working Group said Dr. Chester Douglass reported no link between fluoride and bone cancer in boys, contradicting extensive research done by one of his doctoral students.

Douglass, a professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, has been given grant money, possibly more than $1 million, by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to research whether there is a link between fluoride and bone cancer in boys, the non-profit group alleges.

Monday, June 27, 2005

Sir John's question appears

Sir John Butterfill (Bournemouth West):To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if she will make a statement on the report of the World Health Organisation in 2002 concerning the findings of the US National Toxicology Programme relating to rates of osteosarcoma amongst young males living in fluoridated areas.

Sending letter to my MP

Dear Dr Lewis
Fluoridation fight.

Would you be willing to write to the SHA again and perhaps also raise this question in the House.
"Wouldn't it be prudent that before introducing fluoride into any new scheme the total intake of fluoride of the targeted population be measured?"
In 1994, The World Health Organisation warned dental and public health administrators to be aware of the total fluoride exposure of the population before introducing additional fluoride programmes for caries prevention.

There is fluoride in tea, fish and other foods as well as toothpaste, toiletries, medicines and dental procedures. Fluorosis, a sign of excessive fluoride intake, is evident now in unfluoridated areas.

If the SHA do genuinely take this up with results proving we are overdosed now I cannot imagine they could then still proceed with fluoridation.

Yours sincerely,

USA letter

Flouridation and Safe Drinkng Water
Monday, June 27, 2005
Message Subject: Fluoridation
Dear ChronWatch,
Aside from the obvious wisdom of not using public drinking water as a vehicle to deliver highly cumulative people-treatment substances, consider the following:

1) 90% of tooth decay occurs where fluoridation was never claimed to be effective; the pits and fissures of teeth, i.e., the chewing surfaces of the molars. This is why dentists have been applying plastic sealants to these surfaces for decades. A 1929 study by McKay showed that 95% of tooth decay occurred in the pits and fissures of molars.

2) In 1993, the Journal of Public Health Dentistry reported, "50% of US Head Start children have had Baby Bottle Tooth Decay". Fluoridation does not work here either. And nowadays the Sippy Cup is extending this devastating decay of poor children to epidemic levels. The Denver Post, 4/13/04, illustrates this point; Denver has been fluoridated since 1954 and one dentist reports 300 cases a year of this rampant decay. http://www.Keepers-of-the-Well.org click Effectiveness 7,10,and 12.

3) All three fluoridation compounds are bio-chemically far more toxic to mammals than natural-occurring calcium fluoride.

4) The Aug. 12, 1992, Journal of the American Medical Association, Utah hip fracture study shows that hip fractures were doubled for women at age 75 (Figure 1) if they drank fluoridated tap water for a 20 year span prior to their menopause when bone turnover is still rapidly depositing the embrittleing fluoride into new bone. The men's increase in hip fracture was 41% (Figure 2). These figures only reflect the 50% accumulation into adult bone. Imagine what this figure would have been had these women been raised on fluoridated water since infancy wherein fluoride accumulation is 87%!

It is interesting that fluoridation proponents cite four hip fracture studies wherein exposure was either post-menopausal, i.e., from age 55 to 75, or the length of exposure was only six or seven years. Also, a meta-analysis is often used to bury the importance of this Utah study, a study whose true tragic impact is NOT revealed in the abstract, but rather is revealed in Figure 1and 2 of the study’s text.

A book published in May, 2004, The Fluoride Deception, reveals the details of this, yet another, 1950's public health blunder. http://www.fluoridealert.org posts over a dozen reviews of this long-overdue book.


Maureen Jones
Citizens for Safe Drinking Water
San Jose, CA 95126

Saturday, June 25, 2005

Newcastle protest letter

Fluoridation has a frightening potential for long-term damage

WHAT'S in your drinking water? Well, that depends on which area of the country you live in. Newcastle has an added ingredient called Hexafluorosilicic Acid, more commonly known to you and I as artificial fluoride.
I say artificial because it is certainly not natural, and because it is an extremely toxic corrosive acid which contains contaminates of mercury, cadmium and lead to name but a few.The acid is purchased with taxpayers' money (around £73,000 a year) by the Primary Care Trust/Strategic Health Authority and dumped into our water under the assumption that it will help maintain healthy teeth.Did they ask our permission? No.This issue may seem fairly innocuous but I believe the potential for long-term damage is frightening.
The Government acknowledges that around 48% of people living in Newcastle have been over-exposed to fluoride - this can be seen in the mottling of their teeth.What cannot be seen is the damage to their bones!This acid has been found to cause a rare bone cancer in boys - eight times higher in areas such as Newcastle than the National average.It also affects the thyroid gland causing weight gain and other health problems.Finally, it has been found to cause brain damage as the acid attaches to the lead and aluminium and becomes absorbed into the brain. In the USA, they found higher levels of criminal behaviour in fluoridated areas.One would assume that these toxic ingredients would have been safety tested for human consumption.
The fact is they are poisons and under the name of fluoride have been added to our water without any such tests.This may be the reason why the water companies have been given total legal exemption from penalties or liabilities by the Government for putting this substance in our water.If it is safe why the need for legal protection?

You may believe that bottled water is the answer! Unfortunately your body absorbs these toxins when you shower, as does your food if you cook or clean in it.Water filters have no effect on this particular acid - it is quite simply unavoidable.
You the public can do something. Tell the water company your concerns as well as your MPs - lobby the health authority!

If we don't stop it now what will be next?

Friday, June 24, 2005

Tonight's Southampton Echo  Posted by Hello

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Fluoride plea to save kids' teeth in Portsmouth

CALLS were today (7th June)made for fluoride to be added to water to stop an epidemic of rotten teeth in children.The plea from one of Portsmouth's leading health chiefs came after a shock report showed nearly half of under-fives in the city already have tooth decay.
Paul Edmonson-Jones, director of public health on the city's Primary Care Trust, said putting the tooth-strengthening chemical in the water supply was a proven way of improving oral health.
By law, fluoride can be put into water if the move is approved by the area's health authority and approved in a public consultation.
Health chiefs in Southampton have already approached Hampshire's strategic health authority to ask for a public consultation to begin.
Mr Edmonson-Jones said he was waiting to see the health authority's response, but would make an approach himself on Portsmouth's behalf if necessary.
A report released today by the South East England Public Health Observatory revealed that 44 per cent of five-year-old children in Portsmouth already have at least one tooth which is either missing, decayed, or filled.That is the highest rate in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight; across the whole of the south east only Reading and Slough are worse. East Hampshire, where 36 per cent of children have decay, and Fareham and Gosport, where the figure is 35 per cent, also fare badly – above the south east average of 32 per cent.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Technical Aspects of Fluoridation of Water Supplies 2005

Interesting extract

Section 87C confirms the two chemical compounds which are permitted to be used to fluoridate water supplies and allows water companies to temporarily supply fluoridated water to areas not covered by a fluoridation arrangement where it is necessary to do so due to meet operational constraints (such as dealing with a serious deficiency in supply).

Section 88A confers powers on the Secretary of State (and NAW) to make an order to set a target concentration of fluoride below one milligram per litre. This might be appropriate if, for example, it was established that consumers were consuming significant amounts of fluoride from sources other than drinking water.

Under new section 91, fluoridation schemes existing prior to 1985 are to be treated as if they had been established under the amended Act (except that the consultations required on proposals for new fluoridation schemes do not apply retrospectively). Similarly, the Code of Practice applies to both new fluoridation schemes (established under the WA03) and installations established under all other previous fluoridation arrangements.

Monday, June 20, 2005

I expect the SHA's here are just as ignorant as NZ council

Grey District Council Ignorant About Fluoridation
Monday, 20 June 2005, 9:48 am
From: David Tranter

Grey District Council Astonishingly Ignorant About Fluoridation Chemicals

Sunday, June 19, 2005

The mass poisoning of humanity: an exploration of human stupidity

Posted Jun 13, 2005 PT by the Health Ranger (Mike Adams)

As human beings, we're the only species stupid enough to actually poison ourselves. As part of modern living, we create a wide variety of chemical toxins that go into the ecosystem through rivers and streams, the air, the soil and so on. Not only that, we actually synthesize toxic chemicals and then inject them directly into the food supply -- knowing full well that they are poisonous and are major contributors to the epidemic rates of chronic disease we are experiencing today.

Saturday, June 18, 2005

Good letter in NI paper from NPWA member

Letters to the Editor
Fluoride Will Be Back On Agenda
Friday 17th June 2005

Sir, Claudette Christie, director of the British Dental Association, Northern Ireland, has recently warned about the poor oral health in Northern Ireland which will require increased focus on Public Health, a culture change in the way dentistry is provided and improved fundings.
Last year in a report on poor dental health here the BDA and the Department of Health stated stated that: "it will be only a matter of time before water fluoridation will be on the agenda".

Friday, June 17, 2005

Fighting talk in tonight's Echo Posted by Hello

U.S. Government Asked to Evaluate the Cancer-Causing Potential Of Fluoride in Tap Water

Agri. & Environ.
By EWG - Press Release
Jun 16, 2005, 21:21
EWG Cites Compelling Body of Science Linking Fluoride to Rare Bone Cancer in Boys

WASHINGTON — Citing a strong body of peer-reviewed evidence, Environmental Working Group (EWG) today asked the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to list fluoride in tap water in its authoritative Report on Carcinogens, based on its ability to cause a rare form of childhood bone cancer, osteosarcoma, in boys. The Report on Carcinogens lists only substances that are known or reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans.

In recent years, concerns have grown about the safety of fluoride in tap water. In 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commissioned a study by the National Research Council (NRC) on the overall safety of fluoride in tap water. The final report is expected by February 2006. The NRC, however, does not have the expertise or the mandate to determine the carcinogenicity of fluoride.

EWG recognizes the value of fluoride to dentistry, yet a substantial and growing body of peer-reviewed science strongly suggests that adding fluoride to tap water is not the safest way to achieve the dental health benefits of fluoridation.

Nationwide about 170 million people live in communities with fluoridated water. Adding fluoride to tap water can be a contentious issue. There are ongoing fights over fluoridation in Colorado, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, California, Massachusetts and Nebraska. States with recent battles over fluoridation include New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida, Arkansas and Tennessee.

Research dating back decades, much of it government funded, has long suggested that fluoride added to drinking water presents a unique cancer risk to the growing bones of young boys. New epidemiology provides strong evidence of a link between exposure to fluoride in tap water during the mid-childhood growth spurt between ages 6 and 10, and bone cancer in adolescence. Additional science strongly suggests that fluoride can cause genetic mutations in bone cells directly related to childhood bone cancer.

"We recognize the potential benefits of fluoride to dental health, but there is very compelling evidence that fluoride in tap water can cause bone cancer in boys," said EWG Senior Vice President Richard Wiles. "The government needs to assess the overall strength of the evidence and make a determination of fluoride's cancer-causing potential," Wiles added.

© 2004-2005 by foodconsumer unless otherwise specified.

Thursday, June 16, 2005



Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation (IDOF), a group of over 100 dentists, is demanding an immediate stop to the dosing of all public water supplies with chemical fluoride after a study conducted by the Harvard School of Dental Health found an increased cancer risk in children.[1] The research has already led to the Environmental Working Group, a Washington research organisation, calling for the United States government to list fluoride as a carcinogen.[2] In Ireland all public water supplies have been fluoridated by law since the 1960s and we remain one of the few countries in Europe still adding this chemical to supposedly benefit our teeth.

The disturbing American research shows that boys drinking fluoridated water from the age of five to ten will experience a greater risk of osteosarcoma – bone cancer – when they are older.[3] Another study comparing figures between the Republic of Ireland (fluoridated) and Northern Ireland (unfluoridated) also found a 40% rise in bone cancer levels.[4] In 1996, Northern Ireland refused to begin dosing its drinking water with chemical fluoride when 25 out of 26 councils voted against water fluoridation because of health and safety concerns.

Although osteosarcoma is considered a rare childhood cancer it is one of the most prevalent in young males aged 9-20 and is described by the Boston researcher as a “highly lethal malignant tumour” with an average survival rate of only three years. Most sufferers have limbs amputated.

The fluoride cancer risk reported in yesterday’s Observer confirms growing health concerns about the whole fluoridation process. Last month, IDOF slammed Mary Harney for doing nothing to combat the near epidemic levels of fluoride tooth damage – dental fluorosis – which has seen a seven fold increase in the last twenty years. IDOF also raised the issue of further health damage. Since half of all the fluoride swallowed is stored in the body in hard tissues such as teeth and bones there has always been the question; if fluoride is damaging teeth what is it doing to our bones?

Dr. Don Mac Auley, Chairman of IDOF, commented, “Irish Dentists are seeing fluoride tooth damage every day in our dental practices and as the teeth are the windows of the skeleton we question what this chemical is doing to our patients’ bones. Now we read more evidence that fluoride can cause bone cancer while our health minister plays a delaying game of forums and expert groups. The Forum on Fluoridation concluded three years ago that fluoride levels should be turned down but nothing happened. IDOF no longer wants the fluoride taps turned down we want them turned off. After all, how many cavities do you have to save to justify the death of one young man from osteosarcoma?

Dr. Don Mac Auley. Surgery 046 9021203. Home 046 9054340.


Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Sir John Butterfill to ask the Health Minister


Whether she is aware of the report of the World Health Organisation in 2002 advising scientists to take seriously the findings of the U.S. National Toxicology Programme relating to rates of osteosarcoma amongst young males living in fluoridated areas and if she is aware of the quotation of Dr. Arvid Carlsson, pharmacologist and Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine 2000 stating “I am quite convinced that water fluoridation in a not-too-distant future will be consigned to medical history” and if she will make a statement.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Daily Mail Report Posted by Hello

Monday, June 13, 2005

NZ Moratorium call on water fluoridation

Fluoride & Bone Cancer
Monday, 13 June 2005, 12:34 pm
Press Release: Fluoride Action Network
MEDIA RELEASE: Fluoride & Bone Cancer
In light of recently revealed further evidence of links between fluoride and osteosarcoma (bone cancer), Fluoride Action Network New Zealand (FANNZ) repeat their call for a moratorium on artificial water fluoridation issued last year.

Osteosarcoma is a very serious cancer and its incidence seems to be on the rise in New Zealand - as witnessed by the recently publicised "cluster" in West Auckland where families of cancer victims asked the health authorities to investigate potential causes . The connection between fluoride (which accumulates in bone and other calcifying tissue) and bone cancer was examined in animals by the US National Toxicology Programme as far back as 1977. Subsequent epidemiological studies have found that rates of osteosarcoma among young males living in fluoridated areas have been found to be higher than young males living in unfluoridated areas. "Why is it then, that biopsied and amputated bone of these cancer victims are STILL not being analysed for residual fluoride content?" asks Caren McConnell of FANNZ. "This is yet another way the MOH can say they have "no evidence" of a relationship between fluoride and osteosarcoma - they are quite simply not looking for any. If this attitude were applied to other areas of public health it would be called Negligence, wouldn't it?".

In 2002, the World Health Organization (WHO) advised scientists to take NTP's finding seriously. According to the WHO: "Such a (dose-dependent) trend associated with the occurrence of a rare tumour in the tissue in which fluoride is known to accumulate cannot be casually dismissed." In addition to increased bone cancer, the NTP study also found increases in rare liver cancers, oral cavity cancers and thyroid cancers among the fluoride-treated rats. "Not surprisingly," notes Ms McConnell "fluoride analysis is not being conducted on any of these affected tissues either, so genuine doubts remain". [Ref www.fluorideaction.net for details] Furthermore, FANNZ applauds The Observer [article below] for having the gumption to bring the subject to the public's attention, and challenges the New Zealand media to follow suit. Sadly, the NZ Ministry of Health repeatedly 'fails to engage' with either the national lobby group, or the general public on this issue, preferring instead to issue arrogant Statements, or to meet with local government officials behind closed doors. Cracks in the official facade are appearing though, for example: paid pro-fluoridationist Martin Lee recently attempted to dismiss valid scientific concerns about the practice by likening opponents to Al-Qaeda Terrorists. A desperate measure indeed!

To quote Dr. Arvid Carlsson - Phamacologist and Nobel Laureate in Physiology and Medicine, 2000: "I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history."

Sunday, June 12, 2005

Useful email addresses


North Central London SHA Jenny Jacobs 020 7530 4793 Jenny.Jacobs@cichs-tr.nthames.nhs.uk
North East London SHA Rigoberto Pizarro-Duhart 020 7655 6762 Rigo.pizarro@nelondon.nhs.uk
North West London SHA Claire Robertson 020 8893 0202 Claire.robertson@ealingpct.nhs.uk
South East London SHA Dr Jenny Gallagher 020 7346 3481 Jenny.gallagher@kcl.ac.uk
South West London SHA Neil Roberts 020 8545 6013 Neil.roberts@swlha.nhs.uk
Bedfordshire & Hertfordshire SHA Sue Gregory 01525 636855 Sue.gregory@bedsheartlandspct.nhs.uk
Birmingham & The Black Country SHA Ros Hamburger / Karen Elley 0121 224 4662 0121 500 1659
Essex SHA Dr Mark Shackell 01245 295008 Mark.shackell@chelmsford-pct.nhs.uk
Leicester, Northampton & Rutland SHA Carol Mander / Victoria Harrison 0116 295 1534
01536 494182
Norfolk, Suffolk & Cambridgeshire SHA Richard Ward 01473 329587 Richard.ward@lhp.nhs.uk
Shropshire & Staffordshire SHA Mike Prendergast 01785 221261 Mike.prendergast@sasha.nhs.uk
Trent SHA Ken Wragg 0115 951 2335/2394 or 01246 231255 ext 4302
Ken.wragg@erewash-pct.nhs.uk Ken.wragg@chesterfieldpct.nhs.uk
West Midlands South SHA John Langford 01527 587562 John.langford@wmsha.nhs.uk
Cheshire & Merseyside SHA Gary Lucking 01925 406000 gary.lucking@cmha.nhs.uk
County Durham & Tees SHA David Landes 01388 458 835 David.landes@durhamdalespect.nhs.uk
Cumbria & Lancashire SHA Dr Ann Hoskins 01772 647188 Ann.hoskins@clha.nhs.uk
Greater Manchester SHA Martin Tickle 0161 237 2015 Martin.tickle@gmsha.nhs.uk
North & East Yorkshire & North
Lincolnshire SHA
Dr Gavin McBurnie 01904 435194 Gavin.mcburnie@neynlha.nhs.uk
Northumberland, Tyne & Wear SHA David Evans 0191 219 6134 David.evans@northtyneside-pct.nhs.uk
South Yorkshire SHA John Green 0114 271 1268 John.green@sheffieldse-pct.nhs.uk
West Yorkshire SHA John Beal 0113 305 9699 07939 073802 John.beal@leedssouth-pct.nhs.uk john.beal@doh.gsi.gov.uk
Avon, Gloucestershire & Wiltshire SHA John Boyles 0117 900 2691 John.boyles@bristolswpct.nhs.uk
Dorset & Somerset SHA Mark Callingham 01935 384050 Mark.callingham@dsha.nhs.uk
Hampshire & Isle of Wight SHA Stella Saunders 023 8090 2537 Stella.saunders@scpct.nhs.uk Stella.saunders@doh.gsi.gov.uk
Kent & Medway SHA Christopher Allen 01622 713022 Christopher.allen@nhs.net
South West Peninsula SHA Chris Leopold 01726 627963 Chris.Leopold@swpsha.nhs.uk
Surrey & Sussex SHA Mike Powell 01293 526481 Mike.powell@mspct.nhs.uk
Thames Valley SHA David Thomas 01865 227178 david.thomas@cherwellvale-pct.nhs.uk

Boys at risk from bone tumours, shock research reveals

Fluoride water 'causes cancer'
Bob Woffinden
Sunday June 12, 2005
The Observer

Fluoride in tap water can cause bone cancer in boys, a disturbing new study indicates, although there is no evidence of a link for girls.
New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma - bone cancer - bet-ween the ages of 10 and 19. In the UK, fluoride is added to tap water on the advice of bodies such as the British Dental Association. The Department of Health maintains that it is a cost-effective public health measure that helps prevent tooth decay in children.

Saturday, June 11, 2005

Argument against Aussie posted (not mine)

We wonder if Jason Armfield had his "arm twisted" to write that glowing fluoridation article Other researchers criticizing fluoride or fluoridation have lost their research money and or laboratories. Armfield's own research shows similar cavity rates in ten to fifteen-year-olds' permanent teeth whether they drink fluoridated water or not and was reported, August, 2004 by the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF). (1)

Armfield confirms his findings in another news release issued by California pro-fluoridation dentists intending to debunk NYSCOF's release; but, in fact, bolstering it where Armfield is quoted as saying "Their (NYSCOF's) news release accurately states that we found no significant effect of fluoridated water on the permanent caries experience among 10- to 15-year-olds." (2) Many other studies confirm Armfield's non-effect findings.

Armfield praises dentist Michael Easley a pro-fluoridation activist who's professional life is closely linked with fluoridation promotion. Yet, Easley appears to be losing credibiliity even among his pro-fluoridation colleagues. He has had several different jobs in different universities in different states across the U.S. in recent years and was once fluoridation spokesperson for the American Dental Association; but no longer is. Easley, who likes to call himself the #1 enemy of anti-fluoridationists, is handily deconstructed by The Fluoride Action Network FluoridealertEasleyIf Armfield is getting his fluoridation information from Easley, you should have grave doubts about it's scientific credibility. The truth is that doubt is growing about fluoridation's safety and effectiveness. The recent arrow piercing it's infallibility armor is a study which shows that water fluoridation chemicals leach lead from home plumbing systems. (3) You must use your common sense. How can fluoridation be as perfect as the fluoridationists claim it is. Fluoride should be left to prescribe in the physician's or dentist's office not via the water supply. No drug is safe for everyone. Despite what you've been told fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential to healthy teeth.
And when scientists resort to movie dialogue, e.g. Dr. Strangelove, you know their argument is extremely weak and that they are grasping at straws.

Aussie doesn't think much of us.

Countless studies have cleared fluoridation beyond doubt
Jason Armfield

IN 1985, Michael Easley, a dentist and chief of dental health in Ohio, wrote that probably no medical or scientific advance has been the victim of as much abuse of the scientific literature as community water fluoridation.
Unfortunately, after two more decades of research vindicating both the effectiveness of water fluoridation and its safety, Dr Easley's comment is as relevant today as it was then.

Friday, June 10, 2005

My reply to the National Fluoride Information Centre

Thanks for the reply and the consideration. I’ve looked at the web page again and still find it is a one sided pro-fluoride propaganda. Below is the York conclusion according to you – in bold is the actual York sentences covering the same point.
At the end is a paragraph from a Professor’s letter criticising the biovailability of fluoride study


1. Water fluoridation is associated with decreased prevalence and severity of dental decay in both primary and permanent teeth.

We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.

2. There appears to be no association between water fluoridation and the incidence of bone fractures, defects or cancers. There was insufficient evidence to make conclusions regarding miscellaneous other adverse effects.

An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.

3. Water fluoridation reduces inequalities in dental decay between social groups

The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.

4. Water fluoridation has an effect over and above that of other decay-preventing strategies, such as fluoride toothpastes.

What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth.

5. There appears to be no difference between naturally and artificially fluoridated waters.

I’ll print a paragraph from Stella Saunders Consultant in Dental Public Health (Southampton) who said the same thing

"Most significantly, in my view, at the end of June this year the University of Newcastle announced the results of its study comparing the bioavailability of fluoride in naturally and artificially fluoridated water. The conclusions of the study, that there appears to be no significant difference in the bioavailability of fluoride from drinking waters in which the fluoride is present at concentrations close to one part per million, either naturally or added artificially, or whether the waters are hard or soft, match the outcome predicted by theoretical chemistry. The results of this study therefore support confidence in the benefits and safety of water fluoridation."

I approached a professor who wants to remain anonymous and considering how people are maligned when they come out against fluoridation I’m not surprised. The new president of the British Dental Association came out with the word “claptrap” to describe anything presented against the current dogma. This is what the professor said:

"The MRC review was not systematic and the only reason it included additional studies not included in the York review was because they lowered the threshold and considered studies which the York team deemed too poor methodologically. This means that any conclusions from this are likely to be weaker and have less of a basis than the York review - indeed it was not even part of the MRC's terms of reference to do a review and it seems that it was just taken as an opportunity by the dental establishment to try and change the results.

1) The Newcastle bio-availability study is being referred to. Two things about that:

a) it was about comparing uptake of artificial and naturally occurring fluoride. It was not a study about effects or safety. Therefore to say that "The results of this study therefore support confidence in the benefits and safety of water fluoridation." is a complete misrepresentation of the research.

b) more importantly however, this study has come under considerable criticism. I have read it and am very concerned about the evidence of poor design and manipulation of data: the study was very small and only powered to find over a 30% difference in bioavailability (which is huge). In fact it did find (using one of the outcome measures a statistically significant increase in uptake from artificial fluoride but they then removed one of the 20 data points (saying it was an outlier!) and the result was no longer statistically significant. This is very dubious practice. Essentially the study shows nothing as it is too small but suggests there is a difference in uptake and possible an interaction with soft water. The conclusions of the report stress the caution that must be used in interpreting their results but this is not in the summary of the report. All very dodgy stuff which does not lend support to arguments for fluoridation of water in my view."

Other issues: there are people who are allergic to fluoride, do you think about them? Do you care about the tons of contaminated fluorosilic acid dumped into the environment? Do you care about the risk to thyroid patients? Do you care about those whose kidneys are failing? Do you know what my intake of fluoride is or anybody else’s? Of course you don’t, that is why children are getting fluorosis in areas that are not fluoridated Should babies drink fluoride?

Thursday, June 09, 2005

BBC Report on Dental Study

"Fluoridation of water undoubtedly plays a major role in improving dental health"
Dr Alison Hill

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

NFIC answer my letter

National Fluoride Information Centre (NFIC)

Please find attached a response to your query dated 29 April 2005.

The comments you make relate to the York Review of water fluoridation and you feel that the report on the National Fluoride Information Centre web-page gives a more positive view than that given in the Review.
We have examined our web-page in the light of your comments and would like to make the following points.

1. Your comments regarding the chemicals used to fluoridate water are discussed in paragraphs 5.3.10 to 5.3.12 of the Medical Research Council (MRC) report.

2. You suggest that our web-page ‘seems to be propaganda for the BFS’. The National Fluoride Information Centre is independent of the BFS and all other organisations.

We considered that it would help the reader if we reviewed the York Review and the MRC Review together as they are complementary. We have indicated our reasons for doing this in the second and third sections of ‘Reviews and Research’.

The National Fluoride Information Centre (NFIC) believes that the summary of the York Review on the NFIC website is fair. We explain why and how the review was undertaken and by whom, commenting on the CRD’s international reputation in this area. We have considered the five objectives in turn, along with any further information which is available for the interested reader.

The following now look at each of the five objectives on the York review page in turn and we will outline from where the information was gathered.
Objective 1:
The two line summary comes from Chapter 12 (page 67), paragraph 12.1 as well as page xii of the York review. The more detailed information section comes from Chapter 4 and paragraph 12.1. You will see that a critique of the quality of the studies is given in our fourth paragraph of Objective 1, ‘What are the effects of fluoridation of drinking water supplies on the incidence of tooth decay?’ in the detailed information section.
Objective 2:
The four line summary came from paragraph 5.1 of the review, although the wording has now been changed to conform with that in the third paragraph of 5.1.
The wording in paragraph 12.2 would have been less suitable as a summary as it would have needed explanation. However, the more detailed information contains the wording used in paragraph 12.2.
Objective 3:
The seven line summary is taken from page xii and paragraph 6.4 of the review.
You will notice that the last four lines of this summary comments on the small number of UK studies. There was an error in line three – ’10 year olds’ should have read ’12 year olds’, and this has now been corrected.The more detailed information gives the reader an explanation of why this question is important.

Objective 4:
The five line summary is taken from paragraph 12.4 of the review.
The three major possible negative effects (dental fluorosis, bone fracture and cancers) are discussed in turn. The summary for Dental fluorosis comes from paragraph 12.4 and page xiii, and the more detailed information from chapter 7.
The summary for bone fractures and other bone development problems comes from paragraph 12.4, page xiii and paragraph 8.5; more detailed information comes from chapter 8.
The summary for Cancer studies comes from the last sentence of paragraph 9.6.
The issue of control of confounding factors is important, as discussed in chapter 9, and this was included in the more detailed information.
We now, after looking again at our responses here, have included on this web-page, after ‘Cancer studies’, a new section entitled ‘miscellaneous negative effects’, as this aspect (pages 59-63 in the Review) was previously covered in the more detailed information under Cancer studies where we felt it should have had a section to itlsef.

Objective 5:
The three line summary is taken from chapter 11 of the review and page xiv, and the more detailed information from chapter 11.

Your comments have been considered carefully and we have altered our web-page on the York review in the light of them.

Many thanks again for your interest.

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Southampton Echo report Posted by Hello

Brighton Argus - no mention of the f word

Tooth decay shock of our young
by Siobhan Ryan

Tooth decay among younger children has reached disturbing levels, according to ealth experts. The rise in children suffering problems with their teeth has been blamed on a growth in sugary diets and drinks. Some dentists also blamed a lack of NHS dental care.
The South East Health Observatory released a survey showing a third of five-year-olds in Sussex suffered tooth decay. The report analysed data from health uthorities across the county over seven years. In Bexhill, the position was much worse - tooth decay affected 37 per cent of five-year-olds.

New Harvard doctoral thesis supports fluoride-bone cancer link -Osteosarcoma

For Immediate Release: June 6, 2005
Contact: EWG Public Affairs, 202-667-6982
Enviromental Working Group

Government Asked to Evaluate the Cancer-Causing Potential Of Fluoride in Tap Water

EWG Cites Compelling Body of Science Linking Fluoride to Rare Bone Cancer
in Boys

WASHINGTON - Citing a strong body of peer-reviewed evidence, Environmental Working Group (EWG) today asked the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to list fluoride in tap water in its authoritative Report on Carcinogens, based on its ability to cause a rare form of childhood bone cancer, osteosarcoma, in boys. The Report on Carcinogens lists only substances that are known or reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans.

In recent years, concerns have grown about the safety of fluoride in tap water. In 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commissioned a study by the National Research Council (NRC) on the overall safety of fluoride in tap water. The final report is expected by February 2006. The NRC, however, does not have the expertise or the mandate to determine the carcinogenicity of fluoride.

EWG recognizes the value of fluoride to dentistry, yet a substantial and growing body of peer-reviewed science strongly suggests that adding fluoride to tap water is not the safest way to achieve the dental health benefits of fluoridation.

Nationwide about 170 million people live in communities with fluoridated water. Adding fluoride to tap water can be a contentious issue. There are ongoing fights over fluoridation in Colorado, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, California, Massachusetts and Nebraska. States with recent battles over fluoridation include New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida, Arkansas and Tennessee.

Research dating back decades, much of it government funded, has long suggested that fluoride added to drinking water presents a unique cancer risk to the growing bones of young boys. New epidemiology provides strong evidence of a link between exposure to fluoride in tap water during the mid-childhood growth spurt between ages 6 and 10, and bone cancer in adolescence. Additional science strongly suggests that fluoride can cause genetic mutations in bone cells directly related to childhood bone cancer.
"We recognize the potential benefits of fluoride to dental health, but there is very compelling evidence that fluoride in tap water can cause bone cancer in boys," said EWG Senior Vice President Richard Wiles. "The government needs to assess the overall strength of the evidence and make a determination of fluoride's cancer-causing potential," Wiles added.


Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit research organization based in
Washington, D.C., that uses the power of information to protect human
health and the environment.
New Harvard doctoral thesis supports fluoride-bone cancer link

Environmental Working Group (EWG) has attached to this petition, key portions of a doctoral dissertation from the Harvard School of Dental Medicine that found a strong, statistically significant relationship between fluoride in tap water at levels commonly found in American water supplies, and the rare but often fatal form of bone cancer, osteosarcoma, in boys. The association is particularly strong when exposure occurs during periods of rapid bone growth that take place between ages five and ten. The findings confirm the results of earlier studies by the U.S. Public Health Service and the New Jersey Department of Health that found an association
between fluoride in tap water and bone cancer in males under age 20.

The dissertation by Elise Bassin is titled "Association between fluoride in drinking water during growth and development and the incidence of osteosarcoma for children and adolescentsÃ". Bassin was awarded a doctorate by the Harvard School of Dental Medicine in 2001.

Monday, June 06, 2005

South East Public Health Observatory

The URL is a pdf format, quite a large file needs broadband.

This is the summary
• Whilst oral health has improved in children overall, tooth decay has become clustered within the population and some groups of children still suffer from significant levels of damaged teeth.
• Tooth decay is closely related to social deprivation and inequalities in oral health exist.
• The majority of tooth decay in the South East region is either untreated or treated by removal of the affected tooth.
• Any improvements in oral health in five-yearold children since the 1970s have stopped and there has been a worsening in tooth decay levels in some areas.
• The 2003 national targets for tooth decay in five-year-old children had not been met in 2001 and were unlikely to be met given that improvements in oral health in five-year-old children had stopped or started to reverse.
• The most important evidence for the prevention of tooth decay is the use of fluoride.
• No areas in the South East region have fluoridated public drinking water supplies.

5. Recommendations
• Each SHA area needs to address the issue of fluoridation of the drinking water supplies.
• Areas with children with high levels of tooth decay should be identified and preventive services should be targeted to these locations.
• The Brushing for Life programme, if proven to be effective, should be developed in all areas within Sure Start schemes.
• PCTs need to develop locally sensitive oral
health strategies.
• A review of specialist services within primary care for children should be undertaken.
• SEPHO should be requested to undertake further work on access to oral health services.
• SEPHO will regularly update data on tooth decay levels in five-year-old children on its website as it becomes available.

Breaking news

Just heard from Ann Richards the South East Public Health Observatory are to publish a press release urging all Hampshire PCT's to fluoridate. That gets over Doug Cross's argument that the SHA area does not cover the same district as the water companies.

NYSCOF Fluoride Damages Children's Bones

NEW YORK, June 6 /PRNewswire/
White-spotted or yellow splotched teeth may reveal more than needed expensive cosmetic dentistry. Children with fluoride-discolored teeth (dental fluorosis) are more likely to have bone damage, according to a study published in the journal "Fluoride," reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF).

Letter from Doug Cross re Human Rights

No time to answer in detail at the moment, as I'm on a mission in Laos. Not much happening on the Human Rights front, but the key EU Directive, the Codified Pharmaceuticals Directive - becomes enforceable in the UK in October. That's when fluoridation can be challenged officially as medication using an unregistered medicinal substance [ and that's when the real action can start, as the HR issues arise directly from that strict interpretation of the law.]

As far as Southampton is concerned, expect some 'unexpected' delays over this. Southern Water admits that they can't fluoridate clearly discriminated areas such as are under the control of the SHAs - so people can claim 'discrimination' because some are exposed to this stuff and others aren't! We've spoken to their CEO and his staff, and they are rather worried.


Sunday, June 05, 2005

Friends of the Earth letter to all SHAs in England

*Fluoridation and Habitats Regulations *
I am writing in connection with the fluoridation provisions of Part III of the Water Industry Act 1991 (as amended) and the recent Water Fluoridation (Consultation) ( England ) Regulations 2005. This letter includes a request for information.

Letters to the Editor in USA - same story

Mass medication may be bad for our health
How would you feel if you ordered something at a restaurant, and the waitress brought you something completely different and expected you to pay for it and be happy about it? I would not be happy, either.

Friday, June 03, 2005

The Human Rights Question. Posted by Hello

Thursday, June 02, 2005

The New Agenda of American Dentistry

With the ascension of managed health care in the 1990s, both medicine and dentistry have taken an invidious turn in this country. The fundamental reason is that medicine is no longer run by doctors and dentistry is no longer run by dentists. Or even by the AMA or the ADA. Now both professions have prostituted themselves to a higher entity the insurance cartels which are run today not by doctors, but by MBAs corporate financiers. All policies, billing procedures, all medical and dental decisions answer to one prime directive: profit. It's certainly not a hidden conspiracy. These businesses enjoy success today because they do what corporations are designed to do: make money for their shareholders.

Message from Liz Vaughan

I am aware that there is some disagreement within NPWA about the way to continue the anti-fluoridation campaign in the present circumstances - new legislation, missing Jane's expertise, etc. It may be that some of this disagreement arises from a lack of information. I have therefore put this e-mail together to explain the Association's current thinking in more detail.

Let us assess the present situation. The Water Bill was passed in November 2003. This gives the Strategic Health Authorities the power to order the water companies to fluoridate wherever the SHA decides.This is now law.
The SHAs and the Primary Care Trusts are part of the long arm of the Department of Health. They obey orders from the Department of Health and to influence them is virtually impossible. Writing to them is a waste of time and effort - remember NPWA has been on the go for 45 years, during which time many different strategies have been tried. We do know what doesn't work!
If you wish to write to them to force them to reply to you, thus clogging up their time and resources, fair enough - just don't expect to change their policy by reasoned argument. I have been fighting fluoridation personally since 1988, when they tried to fluoridate the North West. Believe me, if the law says they have to undertake a public consultation in the areas they intend to fluoridate, they will do so. But there is nothing in the law to say they have to change their policy in line with the opinions of the people they consult. The 'consultation' is merely cosmetic.
Don't expect much from your MP just at the moment either. MPs had their chance to be useful in 2003. The law has been passed now. It doesn't hurt to keep your MP informed, but don't expect him/her to rescue you.
Three years ago, NPWA Directors realised that the water companies are the 'Weakest Link', and that pressure could be more effectively applied to them than elsewhere. As private companies selling a product, they have a direct contract with their customers (to supply potable water), which gives us leverage; also they have a PR image to maintain, for the sake of shareholder confidence. With this in mind, George Glasser, Ros Jones, Richard Gentle and I have worked together to produce Power-Point disks. The Dental Fluorosis disk builds on the success of our previous Smile Please! leaflet - the most visited page on our website.
And the Risk Assessment disk is bringing in a whole tranche of new organisations - the police, fire brigades, trade unions, environmental health officers, etc. - who didn't previously see the need to get involved in water fluoridation, but who now realise how directly it could affect them. Using these disks, anyone can now give a authoritative anti-fluoridation presentation to councils or concerned groups of people in just a few minutes. We have made these tools available to everyone, and I have personally sent many disks to Unions and emergency service organisations. In partnership with UKCAF, we have also issued a leaflet: 'Dangerous Goods Advisory Notice' which has been widely distributed. So please don't imagine that the work has stopped, just because Jane is no longer with us!
The indemnity for water companies was secondary legislation. It was rushed through just before the election, signed and sealed by Health Minister Melanie Johnson ( now an ex MP). This is now law.
The Water Companies indemnity was sent to me by Lord Warner, Health Minister in the House of Lords. We have examined it very carefully and it appears to be very sloppy legislation with quite a few loopholes. It is ambiguous in many places, particularly when it says that the water companies must put forth a 'reasonable effort' to obtain payment from third parties before they can bill the DoH.
It appears that the water companies believe they have a cast-iron guarantee, but this may not be the case. We have had correspondence from Water UK's legal advisor, so they are clearly paying close attention to our campaign! It also seems the water companies have serious worries about the indemnity legislation. It is very clear that there is a weakness here that we must exploit. The water companies are more vulnerable (for our purposes) than health authorities. They could go to Government and say that they cannot implement fluoridation, eg. for technical reasons. Pressurising the water companies is the only effective tactic open to us at the moment, and we can achieve more by focussing on one object than by scattering our approaches across a range of targets. So, write to your water company, and ask your council to contact them also. Remind them of the yellow card you sent them and restate your objection to paying for fluoridated water. The UK water industry is the 'Weakest Link' - they have the most to lose. Being caught up in a controversial issue (fluoridating drinking water) generates bad publicity. And bad publicity is not advantageous to inspiring confidence in the stock market. The privatised water industry is all about PROFIT. Threaten their profits and you influence them.
Let us all work together on the water companies.
Liz Vaughan. Chairman NPWA

One dead after explosion at plant

One dead after explosion at plant

One person has been killed in an explosion at a water treatment plant in County Londonderry. Two other people were injured in the blast at Carmoney treatment works in Eglinton, but the extent of their injuries is not known. It is understood the explosion could be linked to chemicals used at the plant. A major incident has been declared as fumes may have escaped. Residents in the Eglinton and Campsie area are being advised to stay indoors. They have been told to keep doors and windows closed.
Altnagelvin hospital in Londonderry has put its major emergency plan into effect.

Fight lost in Mudgee Australia

Mudgee, Gulgong water to be fluoridated
Thursday, 2 June 2005. 09:24 (AEST)Thursday, 2 June 2005. 09:24 (ACST)Thursday, 2 June 2005. 10:24 (AEDT)Thursday, 2 June 2005. 07:24 (AWST)
Fluoride will be added to town water supplies in Mudgee and Gulgong.

The administrator of the Mid-Western Regional Council, Col Arnold, made the decision at the works committee meeting. Mr Arnold will adopt his decision at this month's council meeting.He says community support from phone polls, public forums and evidence from New South Wales Health influenced his decision. "For the sake of better dental health it seems to me it's been proven in children and in adults there is a benefit," he said.Water fluoridation is a contentious issue in Mudgee and Gulgong.
Ken Scifleet says he will stop drinking tap water when the fluoride is added next March. "Well, I still think it's wrong, I'm against fluoride, I don't mind people getting fluoride from other supplies, but I'm against medicating the town supply and that's what they are doing, they're medicating the water supply," he said.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Department of Health - second letter

Department of Health

25 May 2005


Thank you for your further letter of 19 May about water fluoridation.

In response to the strength of your concerns about the fluoridation of your water supply, I can assure you that the Government is continuing to support research into the effects of fluoridation in accordance with the recommendation of the York report. The research includes a project on public perceptions of fluorosis, and also a Government sponsored research project into the bioavailability of fluoride which addresses the issue of whether the chemicals used in artificial fluoridation have different effects tothe calcium fluoride which occurs naturally in water.

You may be interested to know that in June 2004, the School of Dental Sciences at the University of Newcastle, published a report of a study in which they concluded there was no statistically significant difference [in absorption of fluoride] between artificially and naturally fluoridated water, or between soft and hard water.

For the subjects in the study, there were small differences in indices of bioavailability betwe$n the trials of the various types of water, but the results were cqmpatible with the conclusion that the source of fluoride and the hardness of the water had no important influence on the bioavailablility of fluoride. This conclusion agrees with the findings of the earlier study quoted in the report, Chemistry and bioavailability aspects of fluoride in drinking water, which concluded in terms of chemistry and bioavailability 1here is absolutely no difference between added and natural fluoride. The report is available at: httQ://www.ncl.ac.uk/dental/research/diet/fluoride.htm

I would also like to reassure you that the Government has not suspended other forms of oral health promotion in favour of fluoridation. The measures the government is taking to reduce obesity referred to in Choosing a Better Diet - a food and health action plan, include atarget for a reduction in intakes of refined sugars. The Government also promote tooth brushing schemes whereby packs containing a toothbrush and tube of fluoridated toothpaste are issued free of charge to the families
of young children to get them into the habit of brushing their teeth regularly. However, evidence shows that it is very difficult to change behaviour in these respects. Water fluoridation can complement these individual interventions by reducing tooth decay on a population basis.

Finally, with regards to your concerns about the lack of dentists in Britain, you may be interested to know that as part of our programme of reforms to revitalise NHS dentistry we are recruiting the equivalent of 1,000 extra dentists. In addition to providing incentives for dentists to increase their NHS commitment and encouraging dentists taking career breaks to return to the NHS, we are also recruiting dentists from overseas. If you are experiencing difficulties registering with a dentist, may I suggest you telephone NHS Direct on: 08454647 for assistance in finding a dentist in your area.

I hope this reply is helpful and thank you again for writing.