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

UK Against Fluoridation

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Weird logic in USA

Smoking stinks and is a known detriment to people's health. But it is a smoker's choice to light up. It should be a person's right to decide what they take into their body, good or bad. Some people still believe fluoride is bad for you and would probably like to stop everyone from drinking it with their municipal provided tap water. The only person entitled to control your body is you. If you do not want someone forcing you to align with their visions of what is healthy, why should you do it to other people through legislation?

Click title to see full article - all about smoking.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Advice on thyroid health

• Avoid green tea since it contains high fluoride levels.

• Water — important to drink the required daily eight glasses of water.


Supportive letter in the Echo

Friday, October 28, 2005

AIDS now!

More From The Republican
Activists fight proposal on fluoride authority
Friday, October 28, 2005
BOSTON - Activists from Western Massachusetts yesterday converged on Beacon Hill to fight an effort to strip voters of the right to decide if fluoride should be added to municipal drinking water.
The Legislature's Committee on Public Health yesterday aired bills that would empower the state Department of Public Health to regulate fluoride in most municipal drinking water supplies.
The Massachusetts Medical Society and other national and international health organizations support fluoridation of drinking water mainly because it can prevent tooth decay and help avoid other health problems.
Led by Stephen A. Dean, a chiropractor in Springfield and president of Massachusetts Communities for Pure Water, about 40 residents of Western Massachusetts opposed the bill.
"We don't want fluoride," said Donald K. Husson, 72, a retired letter carrier from Springfield. "We don't want it forced down our throats."
Critics cited a study that found fluoridation can cause increased risk of bone cancer.
Other opponents who lobbied at the Statehouse included Linda L. Gagne, 48, of Springfield, her daughter, Kelly M. Higgins, 17, and her son, Raymond G. Gagne, 14.
"We love Springfield water," said Linda Gagne.
Under existing law, residents have the option of placing a referendum on a ballot if a board of health seeks to increase the fluoride content of water.
Of the state's 351 cities and towns, 135 have fluoridated water supplies, covering 62 percent of the state's population, according to the medical society.
Springfield, Worcester, Leominster and Pittsfield are some of the largest communities in the state without fluoridated water supplies.
Dr. Jeffrey H. Scavron, medical director of the Brightwood Health Center in Springfield, spoke in support of fluoridation, saying people need as much protection as possible from dental disease.
Scavron said fluoride would improve the drinking water in Springfield and wouldn't affect the taste.
Scavron said poor dental health is associated with other diseases such as the virus that causes AIDS, heart disease and diabetes.
Scavron said only about five dentists in Springfield accept Medicaid, severely limiting dental care for the poor and disabled.

USA City loses battle to keep fluoride out

Watsonville loses fluoride appeal in precedent-setting case
By Donna Jones
Sentinel Staff Writer
Fluoride could flow from city taps within a year.
The city's nearly 3-year-old fight to keep the chemical out of its water supply may have come to an end Wednesday when an appeals court ruled a state fluoridation law trumps local voters.
The ruling by the Sixth District Court of Appeals sets a precedent for cities statewide, though the Watsonville City Council could decide to take its defense of the 2002 voter-approved Measure S to the state Supreme Court.
"They should save their money and just go ahead and fluoridate the water supply," said Jim Jacobson, a Watsonville orthodontist and president of Dientes Community Dental Clinic. "The need for community water fluoridation is incredibly great."

Click title to see full article

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Too good to be true?

Candy Good for Your Teeth: Stony Brook Researchers Incorporate Cavity-Fighting Cavistat(R) Technology in Confections; Cavistat Significantly More Effective Than Fluoride in Fighting Tooth Decay
10/27/2005 11:54:00 AM EST

A new technology that was developed at Stony Brook University's School of Dental Medicine, and which can be incorporated into confections, will be used to market candy, chewing gum, and other treats that do not promote cavities often associated with their consumption.

Click title for full article

USA - elevated lead levels in children

Dangerous flouride?
By Jon Brodkin / Daily News Staff
Thursday, October 27, 2005
A Natick chemist whose research has linked fluoridated water to elevated levels of lead in children's blood is trying to convince state lawmakers to defeat a proposal that would mandate fluoridation of most public water supplies.
About 30 lawmakers are trying to require adding fluoride to water supplies that serve at least 5,000 people. Dental groups and many public health agencies, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, promote fluoridating tap water because they say it prevents tooth decay.
But some researchers have concluded that fluoridated water is harmful to children's health, including Natick chemist Myron Coplan and Roger Masters, president of the Foundation for Neuroscience and Society at Dartmouth College and the college's Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor of Government Emeritus.
Click title to go to full article

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

From a doctor

Don't put anything in the water!
Tuesday, October 25, 2005 @04:44AM
by Robert C. Dickson

Dear editor,
As a medical practitioner for three decades and a leader of the anti-fluoride movement in Calgary for four years, my tendency and preference has been to walk a calm, rational path and attempt to entice colleagues and the powers that be to look objectively at the facts and new information around water fluoridation. However, I find myself becoming increasingly angry and frustrated with the political and medical scam behind this issue.
Read these lines carefully, before leaping into the fluoridation abyss:
Water fluoridation does NOT protect teeth and prevent cavities. A case can be made for topical fluoride use but not for the ingested variety.
-This is not natural calcium fluoride nor pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride that is being dumped into our mostly pure and clean water systems, but a highly toxic industrial waste hydrofluorosilicic acid, which is scrubbed out of the smoke stacks of the fertilizer and aluminium industries.
-Hydrofluorosilicic acid is not fully tested or approved for human use in North America and we are uncertain as to what happens when it dissociates in water.

-This volatile toxin is an enzymatic poison that accumulates in neurological tissue, endocrine tissue and excessively in the bones, making bones thicker but weaker and more brittle.
-95% of British Columbia and 98% of Europe is non-fluoridated and, you guessed it, their teeth are as good or better than Alberta, where 75% is fluoridated, and the USA where 65% is fluoridated.
-Dental decay is a condition associated with poor nutrition, overuse of sugary foods and drinks, poor dental hygiene and lack of good quality basic dental care.
-Water fluoridation does NOT help poor children. Many studies bear this out.
My simple request is that every medical and dental practitioner and each politician in your area read the amazingly powerful 2004 book, The Fluoride Deception, by Christopher Bryson. With over 100 pages of documentation, this book reveals fluoridation as the disgusting and disheartening crime against the general public that it is.
Sometimes it is hard to admit that the proverbial wool has been pulled over our eyes. Dr. Hardy Limeback, head of Preventative Dentistry at the University of Toronto, made that leap in 1998 and I followed in 1999. We have since been attempting to send fluoride to rest along with leaded gasoline and paint, asbestos, DDT, thalidomide, hexavalent chromium and many of the other follies from the era of chemical evangelicism.

Dr. Robert C. Dickson,

Family Physician, Calgary

USA letter fighting local fluoridation push.

The proposal to fluoridate water was defeated several years ago. Why must it be forced on us again?! There is no need to swallow fluoride. There is no reason to force people against their will to drink fluoride in their water supply. Consider the following:
• The Center for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged that fluoride risks are systemic (i.e. when swallowed).
• The Food and Drug Administration has never approved any fluoride product designed to be ingested.
• Fluoride is the only chemical added to water that does not treat the water itself.
• Ninety-eight percent of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation.
• The rhetoric supporting fluoridation is increasingly centered around the notion that fluoridation benefits the poorest in society the most. This claim flies in the face of the experience of most U.S. inner cities over the past 50 years. Despite the fact that nearly all large U.S. cities have been fluoridated for decades, dental decay is currently rampant in virtually all poor urban areas. One of the major dental health problems experienced in poor communities is a condition known as “baby bottle tooth decay.” The prevalence of baby bottle tooth decay is about three times the national average among poor urban children in communities with a fluoridated water supply.
• The fluoride chemical used for fluoridation is an unprocessed industrial waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry. It is hazardous waste, contaminated with a number of toxins, particularly arsenic.
• Most people are already receiving too much fluoride from their toothpaste and diets. We ingest untold amounts of fluoride just from the canned foods, beverages, infant formulas and other foods that are processed in fluoridated cities. It has now reached the point where most of people receive the “optimal” 1 mg/day of fluoride (which fluoridated water was designed to deliver) without ever drinking a glass of fluoridated water.
Recent research has linked fluoride to serious health problems including arthritis, hip fractures, Alzheimer’s disease and cancer. Due to the increase in total fluoride exposure, there has been a major increase in the rate of dental fluorosis found among American children. This is the first visible sign that fluoride has poisoned the enzymes in the body. High levels of naturally occurring fluoride causes a crippling bone disease known as skeletal fluorosis. Fluoride also induces damage to the brain and its functions.

• Fluoride is a very toxic substance, which is why it is the active ingredient in a number of pesticides. Just over two grams of fluoride (roughly a teaspoon) is enough to kill a 160 pound adult, while just 300 mg is enough to kill a 20-pound child.

As Dr. J. William Hirzy, NTEU Chapter 280 vice president and Environmental Protection Agency employee said, “we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small — if there are any at all — that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of governments.”
Why would anyone, knowing there was any possibility of risk or harm, choose to medicate the water?! You owe it to yourselves and your loved ones to learn more about this issue so you can make an informed vote. Visit www.fluoridealert.org to learn more.

Melody Bates

Rush Valley

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Hogwash but Interesting end piece on who is fluoridated


Q. My dentist insists that his patients use a fluoride mouthwash at night to minimise tooth decay. The taste is unpleasant and the practice feels unhealthy for the mouth, even if it benefits the teeth. Are there any recognised side effects of using a fluoride mouthwash?

A. Fluoride makes the teeth more resistant to decay. For children, whose teeth are still developing, fluoride supplements, either in the water supply or by drops or tablets, help to provide long-term resistance to decay. Once the teeth are formed, it is more difficult to benefit from the effects of fluoride. But fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash do help to keep adult teeth decay-resistant. The most important side effect of fluoride occurs if children take too much of it. This can lead to a condition called fluorosis, which causes white specks and brown discoloration on the teeth. There are no recognised side effects of fluoride mouthwash, as long as you use it according to the manufacturer's instructions. It is not unhealthy for the mouth, and the unpleasant taste may be due to the other constituents of the mouthwash, rather than the fluoride.

Have you tried another brand to see if it is more palatable? Unless your teeth are particularly decay-ridden, the benefits of using a fluoride mouthwash may not be substantial, particularly if you are already using a fluoride toothpaste every day.

To find out how much fluoride is present in your local water supply, go to the website of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ( www.defra.gov.uk) and search for "fluoride". You will find a map of the UK showing local fluoride levels. If the local water supply contains less than 0.7 parts per million of fluoride, it is sensible to give children supplements from the age of six months.

Monday, October 24, 2005

How toxic is your bathroom?

Be warned: your daily beauty regime could be taking years off your life. Pat Thomas reports on the chemical timebomb in your cosmetics cabinet
Published: 24 October 2005
Earlier this year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did something amazing. It issued an unprecedented warning to the cosmetics industry that it was time to inform consumers that most personal care products have not been safety tested.

Where the US goes, the UK inevitably follows. If the FDA starts the ball rolling by flexing its muscles, it is possible that in the not too distant future 99 per cent of personal care products could be required to carry a caution on the label: "Warning: The safety of this product has not been determined."

Click header for full article

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Can we depend on them? No

Even Very Low Levels Of Environmental Toxins Can Damage Health
Four of the most widespread environmental toxins--lead, trihalomethanes (found in drinking water), ionizing radiation from indoor radon gas, and tobacco smoke--can cause serious damage to health even at very low levels, say researchers in the international medical journal PLoS Medicine.
What this means, say the researchers Donald Wigle of the University of Ottawa and Bruce Lanphear of Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, is that there are simply no safe levels of exposure to these toxins and they must be "virtually eliminated to protect human health."
Children can suffer brain damage from being exposed to very low levels of lead, they say. Although the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not recommend public health or medical action unless the blood lead level of children exceeds 0.48 micromoles/liter, several longitudinal studies of children found inverse relationships between IQ and blood lead levels over a range extending below 0.48 micromoles/liter. These studies found no evidence of a "safe" threshold.

The Canadian government has concluded that the human lifetime cancer risk associated with drinking water containing trihalomethanes at 100 micrograms per liter (the current Canadian trihalomethane drinking water guideline) would be negligible. But recent research showed that there was an excess bladder cancer risk in men exposed to trihalomethanes at levels above one microgram per liter compared to less exposed men (the excess lifetime risk was about seven per 1000). This excess risk, say Wigle and Lanphear, is "much higher than those usually designated as negligible."
The researchers say that both radon and environmental tobacco smoke can damage health at very low levels. A recent expert committee concluded that the most plausible relationship between ionizing radiation and cancer was a linear relationship with no safe threshold, while studies have shown that even low level exposure to passive smoking can reduce fetal growth.

"The public depends on decision makers, scientists, and regulators to restrict exposure to widespread toxins that have known or suspected serious potential health effects," say Wigle and Lanphear.

Is it that simple? Have written to him to find out what he knows and we don't

Friday, October 21, 2005

Australia - His arguments dismissed as garbage!

Ex-mayor bares teeth in fight against 'poisoning' of water
Sean Parnell
IN the 1964 film Dr Strangelove, General Jack D. Ripper was prepared to start a nuclear war over his fears that the Soviet Union might secretly fluoridate the US water supply.
While newspaper columnist Jim Soorley isn't ready for an all-out war, the former Brisbane lord mayor and standard bearer for the anti-fluoridation movement in Queensland is still vehemently opposed to its introduction in the state.
"I will continue to warn people of the dangers and I think the people of Queensland need to realise they could well find poison put into their water for short-term political gain," Mr Soorley said yesterday, in response to Premier Peter Beattie's attempt to encourage water fluoridation.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Lack of `democratic process' Australia and here

Fluoride concern
Dean Lawson
Thursday, 20 October 2005
HORSHAM councillors want the State Government to delay fluoridating the city's water supply to allow more time for formal public discussion on the plan.
Horsham Rural City Council, concerned about a perceived lack of `democratic process' in Horsham's fluoride debate, spoke at length and voted on the issue at a meeting on Monday night.
Councillors were responding to correspondence which included a petition signed by 1268 people opposing fluoride in Horsham's water supply, a call from Sharon Wood of Haven for a community poll on the matter and government information supporting fluoridation.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Southampton Echo printed my letter
(shortened and botched)
I said "unleashed by Professor
Raman Bedi Chief Dental Officer
on Southampton." not of Southampton.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Tibetians get fluorosis through drinking tea!

Letter by T S Raman
I am a scientist, and till today, I have been unable to find definitive scientific evidence for the purported benefits of fluoride. Especially, there is no experimental (interventional) evidence, and all the panegyrics on fluoride have been based on stray, 50-year old observations made by people NOT trained in science. Some months back I asked the American Dental Association (on line) for information, but they have not replied.
By the way, how do you "adjust[..] the fluoride content that occurs naturally in a community's water to the best level"? If the "naturally" occurring fluoride content in the water is too high (as is the case in many, many parts of the world, including ALL continents), there is no simple or easy way to reduce it to the "best level".
Also, the fluoride that the people ingest does not always come entirely from water. For instance, it is well known that ground-water in Tibet does not contain much fluoride, but dental and skeletal fluorosis is common there. The dietary source of the excess fluoride is tea.
It is about time proponents of fluoridation gave up their pig-headedness and looked at facts, especially recent scientific findings, recent WHO documents, and so on.

Monday, October 17, 2005

Time Magazine

From the Magazine | Science
Not in My Water Supply
It hardens teeth and prevents cavities, but 60 years after it began, fluoridation is meeting new resistance
Posted Sunday, Oct. 16, 2005
Somebody put a dead rat in Curtis Smith's mailbox. Someone else has made anonymous phone calls accusing him of trying to poison his neighbors. And all around the usually placid university town of Bellingham, Wash., activists from a group called Citizens Against Forced Fluoride have planted lawn signs adorned with skull and crossbones. "I had no idea it would get this intense," says Smith, 70, a retired dentist who is leading a Nov. 8 ballot initiative to add fluoride to the local drinking water. "These are very angry people."

In today's Daily Mail

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Bill Bean's letter to the Lymington Times
(Click to enlarge)

Anthony's letter to the Lymington Times

Friday, October 14, 2005

Townsman an opinion writer for the Lymington Times wakes up to the danger of fluoride and the consultation farce.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Alice in Wonderland? Health Board to stop it (Not here)

Voters may get say on fluoride
NORTH ATTLEBORO -- Voters will likely get a chance to weigh in on fluoride again at April's town election, but that won't stop the board of health from suing to stop fluoridation.Selectmen Chairman John Rhyno has committed to placing a question on April's town election ballot asking voters whether they believe the town's water supply should be fluoridated. Selectmen can place questions on the ballot if a majority of the board agrees.Rhyno said he plans to ask the board to place the issue on the ballot in a non-binding question after learn ing about the pending lawsuit.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Sieg Heil - Australia and here soon

"The vocal opposition of a minority should not be allowed to misinform the community against the benefits of the program," he said.
He said he was sympathetic to members of the community who were concerned about the loss of individual choice. "But the issue of dental health is so important it overrides personal freedom, in the same way the importance of issues such as seatbelts and immunisation," he said. Mr Brown welcomed further consultation on community health issues and said the partnership would consider if further education was necessary before the planned introduction of fluoride next year.

BBC Government 'pushes fluoridation'

Only 11% of the population have fluoridated water
The government has written to health chiefs reminding them they have the power to order water companies to add fluoride to water supplies. The move is being seen as a concerted effort to push for more fluoridation of drinking water. Supporters, including the British Dental Association, say fluoridation help to cut tooth decay significantly. But opponents claim fluoride can cause a range of problems, from tooth mottling to cancer. MPs approved legislation to make it easier for fluoride to be added to drinking water in England and Wales in 2003. Water companies have been allowed to add fluoride to supplies since 1985, but few have for fear of legal action. The 2003 legislation gave health agencies the power to force firms to fluoride water after consulting local people, in order to tackle tooth decay.
In the latest move, the government's chief dental officer Professor Raman Bedi has written to health chiefs to tell them that adding fluoride to water supplies was a way to reduce health inequalities. His letter explains the legal procedures that health authorities would need to follow to instruct water companies to fluoridate supplies.

Under the regulations, health authorities would have to test public opinion through a survey and focus groups before pushing ahead. A Department of Health spokesperson said: "Water fluoridation is one of the more efficient and cost-effective of possible oral health promotion measures." A spokesperson for the British Dental Association said: "It's tragic that, in the 21st century, there are still children as young as five having most or even all of their teeth removed under general anaesthetic as the result of tooth decay.

"Water fluoridation is a positive step in narrowing the health inequalities that currently exist." "We are pleased that the guidelines for consultation have now been distributed to Strategic Health Authorities and look forward to open and honest debate as those consultations move forward."
However, Carolyn Smith, of the National Pure Water Association, said reading Professor Bedi's letter had "made her go cold". She said fluoride had never been licensed as a medical treatment, and cited a US study which linked fluoridation to an increased risk of the childhood cancer osteosarcoma. She told the BBC News website: "Forcing people to ingest something against their will is a contravention of medical ethics."
Fluoride is present naturally in most water supplies - but usually not at levels which are beneficial for dental health.
Currently, six million people in the UK - including the Midlands, Newcastle and the North East - receive fluoridated water supplies.

Monday, October 10, 2005

Southampton still the first to be fluoridated

Poorest areas will be targets of fluoridation
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 10/10/2005)
The Government's attempt to extend water fluoridation across England is likely to focus on the most deprived 20 per cent of the population, which experiences 80 per cent of the nation's dental disease. Dentists say that in countries where water fluoridation is widespread, such as America, Australia and New Zealand, dental health is far superior to this country's.It is also better in those parts of the country where the water is treated compared with those where it is not. In a letter sent by Prof Raman Bedi, the chief dental officer for England, to health chiefs, he referred to the ''duty'' of primary care trusts to reduce health inequalities. But these areas of need rarely coincide with the boundaries of water companies, and partial fluoridation can pose technical difficulties.Prof Bedi's letter sets out the legal procedures that need to be followed if the health chiefs are to instruct water companies to fluoridate their supplies. These include wide consultation with the local communities affected. The Department of Health is drawing up a ''model agreement'' covering the main terms to be included in any arrangements between England's 28 strategic health authorities and the water companies. Under regulations introduced this year, health authorities are expected to carry out a public opinion survey, set up focus groups and consider all letters and resolutions. They can go ahead with a scheme if they are ''satisfied that the health arguments in favour of proceeding with the proposal outweigh all arguments against proceeding''. Anti-fluoride campaigners say that the science is unproven and that fluoridation poses significant risks to health. Critics also claim that fluoridation is "indiscriminate mass medication", and should not be forced on people against their will through their water supply.Supporters say the biggest argument in favour of water fluoridation is that it works.Although a large group of people mistakenly believes its supplies are fluoridated, only a small part of England is covered by schemes, principally around Birmingham and eastern England. The last major battle over fluoridation took place in the early 1990s in the North-East, where health authorities, backed by 70 per cent of the local population, had a scheme that would have covered one million people rejected by Northumbria Water, and then in the courts.

This year, Southampton City Primary Care Trust became one of the first to consider asking the health authority to use the new powers to introduce fluoridation.Andrew Mortimore, the city's director of public health, said: "Child dental health in Southampton is particularly poor. There is plenty of evidence that proves fluoridation can reduce decay.''

Saturday, October 08, 2005

Why It’s Not Safe (USA)

Water Fluoridation: Why It’s Not Safe
Of late we’ve once again learned that health officials sometimes change their minds about what is considered healthy and safe. The recent recalls and warnings from FDA about previously-FDA-approved pain medications and over-the-counter diet aids and cough suppressants demonstrate this.
Have you ever wondered what medications and health practices we accept today will later be known to have harmed us, rather than helped us? Here is one practice whose reversal is just around the corner: fluoridating our drinking water to prevent cavities in children. We’ve said for fifty-plus years that fluoride is safe, effective, and necessary. But now information is pouring in from around the world and the U.S. that shows that fluoridated drinking water may actually be causing many of the diseases we’ve come to call “diseases of aging.” Included are hip fractures, thyroid disease, joint pain, as well as several other disorders that affect persons of all ages.
Consider this: it has now come out that most of the fluoride we’ve been injecting into our drinking water is silicofluoride, a substance that has never been tested or approved by any federal agency. And where does it come from? It’s an air pollutant emission captured inside smokestacks at phosphate fertilizer factories. If it is emitted into the air it is a pollutant; if it is discharged into a lake or river, it is a pollutant; it is regulated by EPA as a water “contaminant;” but if it is placed in our drinking water and we ingest it into our bodies, it is somehow called a “nutrient.” Because of the industrial processes and raw material used as its source, the fluoride also comes contaminated with radioactive uranium decay compounds, arsenic, lead, and mercury.
People hearing this are shocked. Why weren’t we told this? Well, we were … but not really. Buried in most water agencies’ water quality reports amongst a dizzying list of chemical names is a little-observed statement that the source of the “contaminant” fluoride is “discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factories.”
The pro-fluoride people tell us that the toxic fluoride, arsenic, and radioactive compounds are diluted in the water, therefore they pose no harm. But what we haven’t been told is that these compounds are cumulative poisons. The small amounts we ingest cumulatively build up in our bodies, and can cause cancer, thyroid disease, kidney damage, and joint pain. If your kidneys work well, approximately half of the fluoride you ingest goes out in your urine, but the remaining half is stored -- cumulatively -- in your body.
How do you feel that your body is being used as the final resting place of the toxic discharges of industry? As a public health professional with a background in hazardous materials management and assessment, I can tell you that I am not in favor of fluoridation. And a growing number of other medical, dental, and public health professionals are now also calling for a halt to fluoridation, including eleven EPA employee unions representing 7,000 EPA employees across the U.S.
There is more disturbing news. It turns out that in 2000, dentists admitted that fluoride helps prevent cavities primarily topically, while in the mouth -- not by your body’s systemic absorption of the chemical. So then the logical question is: why continue drinking a toxic chemical throughout your whole body, over your entire lifetime, if its main action against cavities occurs when it touches your teeth in the mouth? This voids the whole reason we originally put fluoride in water in the first place.
You also receive fluoride in your foods -- in your cereal, bread, baby food, canned foods, tea, sodas, pasta, and frozen foods (because they’re made with fluoridated water), as well as from toothpaste and antibiotics. Four federal agencies are relooking at the safety of fluoridation now, and the fact that we absorb it cumulatively from so many unmonitored sources is one of the reasons for the new investigations.
Large numbers of cities and countries around the world reject water fluoridation, and many of them that do not have any form of fluoridation have lower cavity rates than our fluoridated cities. The entire island of Long Island, with more than 40 water districts serving 3 million people, has stopped water fluoridation. Now, the Tennessee city of Franklin is relooking at fluoridation’s safety. The dental industry is fearful and defensive, and one can understand why. It is projected that the health effects and lawsuit costs from fluoridation will dwarf those of tobacco.
Fluoridation is voluntary in Tennessee. Your water district can simply vote to not fluoridate. I urge you to contact your water district and tell them, “Stop the fluoride!”
Daniel G. Stockin, MPH

(Daniel G. Stockin is a 17-year public health professional. He was manager of EPA’s Western Regional Lead Training Center and worked with hazardous materials at two large universities. He is now Senior Operations Officer at The Lillie Center, Inc., a public health and environmental health services firm based in Brentwood. He may be reached at 615-370-5788, or by email at: dan@thelilliecenter.com.)

(NZ) Residents say no to fluoridated water

Residents in part of the West Coast have voted overwhelmingly against adding fluoride to their drinking water. The result of the referendum means people in Greymouth and outlying areas will join eight other towns and cities around the country that do not use fluoride Opponents are delighted but health professionals are dismayed, saying locals health will continue to suffer. Over 70% of the 6,000 votes were opposed to the plan to fluoridate the water. It is a result that has dismayed Principal Dental Health Officer of Health Dr Martin Lee.
"The oral health of West Coasters is among the worst in the country which puts them amongst the worst in Australasia," says Lee.
About 60% of New Zealanders drink fluoridated water.The Greymouth council decided five months ago to fluoridate, partly because the local hospital treat 80 children every year under general anaesthetic and a quarter of adults do not have their own teeth.But opponents forced a backdown, saying fluoride had serious side effects.
Grey District Mayor Tony Kokshoorn says it was a campaign that had an element of emotion to it."There was a lot of people who had drawn a line in the sand and definitely hardened opinions on either side," says Kokshoorn.Lee says he is frustrated because the decision had nothing to do with science or evidence-based healthcare. "It's all about politics of fear and unfortunately real people suffer as a result." However Greymouth residents it seems are willing to take the gamble.

Friday, October 07, 2005

Another Australian letter

Fri, Oct 07, 2005
Fluoride linked to bone cancer
THE fluoride issue is bigger than Ben Hur.
I always knew that fluoride was detrimental to our health and for this reason have always avoided it but I did not realise the full extent of the dangers until I recently started to research it.
The expensive little booklet that has been distributed to our homes on the pretence of, and I quote “to provide balanced and factual information”, fails to give balanced facts, fails to inform consumers of the potential dangers and known health issues associated with fluoride. For a start, fluoride is not just occurring in teeth, it is also found in skeletal bones of people who have been poisoned with fluoride and is suspected of being a precursor to osteo-sarcome, which is bone cancer. At present 11 unions in America, consisting of about 7000 members are petitioning Congress and asking for a moratorium on fluoride because of the suspected relationship to osteo-sarcome, bone cancer. Just as a matter of interest, I examined boxes of fluoride tablets in a local chemist and noted the dosages for each age group. There were no dosages listed for six months of age and under so I phoned the 1800 number on the package and asked what dose I give a baby under six months of age. I was told by the consumer advice person that it is not recommended that babies under six months have fluoride at all. When I asked why that was, he said “because it allows for normal bone formation up until that time”. This puts formula fed babies at even greater risk. Fluoride is a toxic poison, so much so, that it is trapped in the smoke stacks at the fertiliser factories so that it does not escape into the atmosphere. Fluoride mouthwash as directed should be “swirled around the mouth and spat out. The precaution “Do not swallow” is also printed on the bottle. Toothpaste, as we have all been taught, is to brush teeth with and spit out before rinsing. Most mothers know instinctively to teach their children not to swallow toothpaste. I have the right to refuse medication and treatment from doctors and hospitals as I choose. I cannot be forced to accept treatment I dont want. Mass medication is dangerous and infringes on our right to choose. To top it all off, the Victorian Government unanimously passed a new Fluoridation Act on the October 28, 1993. This changed the Victorian Constitution which now reads” “The Supreme Court of Victoria is prohibited from entertaining a case against fluoridation” (Hansard).

What are they scared of if it is so safe and so good for us?

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Hope they win

City began treating its water in August
By Booyeon Lee
October 6, 2005
ESCONDIDO – Opponents of fluoridation of the city's water supply have appealed two rulings endorsing the practice to the state Supreme Court.
Seven Escondido residents who filed the lawsuit contend that the city and state are violating their constitutional rights by using a fluoride additive, called hydrofluorosilic acid, that contains trace amounts of arsenic and lead.
"This case will decide whether our government can mass-medicate the people of the State of California without their informed consent," says the first sentence of a 30-page brief their attorney submitted to the Supreme Court last week.
The appeal is aimed at overturning an August ruling by the 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego and a Superior Court ruling in October 2004. Judges in both courts found that the city's use of the additive for fluoridation is legal.

A hearing date has not been set. Escondido began fluoridating its water in August, making it the first city or water district in the county to do so. The decision affects about 75 percent of the city's residents. Some parts of the city are served by the Rincon del Diablo Municipal Water District, which is not fluoridating. Norm Blumenthal, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, said Escondido's use of hydrofluorosilic acid could result in higher incidents of cancer. They contend that safer alternatives, such as sodium fluoride, are available. "The appeal is based on the 14th Amendment (as it relates) to bodily integrity," Blumenthal said. "(Hydrofluorosilic acid) has never been approved for safety or efficacy as a drug; you certainly can't use it in water." Fluoridation proponents and city officials argue that hydrofluorosilic acid is used by hundreds of cities and water districts across the nation that fluoridate. They say its use is permitted by the state and that the amounts of lead and arsenic it contains are so minute that it doesn't pose a health hazard.
City officials say the arsenic levels in Escondido's water, even with the use of the additive, would be between one-hundredth and one-thousandth of the 2006 federal standard of no more than 10 parts per billion for drinking water. Arsenic is commonly found in groundwater from natural sources. The city also argues that fluoridation has been proved safe and effective in reducing tooth decay and gum disease in numerous cities across the country over more than five decades of use.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Jane was Right

Waste of time trying to convince the fluoridation experts they cannot do anything but endorse fluoride.
Their comment "no biological plausibility" beggars belief.

NFIC Response
Dear Mr. Edmunds,
Many thanks for your recent comments which were passed onto our senior advisors, who then examined and noted your points.
Having looked at the comments which you submitted, the advisory team felt that there was nothing in these which would result in a member of the team making any amendments to the reports on allergy, thyroid and kidney which were sent to you previously.
The reason which is given for this is that of the reports which you submit as evidence, one is anecdotal and the other is of very low grade evidence.
As such, they would not warrant any changes to the evidence which is contained in these reports.Our advisors also looked at the fatness theory which you mentioned but found no biological plausibility for such a theory and no evidence which had been submitted or accepted by a scientific journal to substantiate this.

The advisory team has also taken note of Professor Sheldon's position. They have looked at the NPWA website to see his reasons which, they suspect, are to do with the low quality of the epidemiology.I would like to thank you again for your enquiry and please do not hesitate to contact the centre if you have any further queries,

With many thanks,
Kate Tidman
Communications Manager
National Fluoride Information Centre (NFIC)

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Eat Right Smile Bright Campaign

Campaign Makes Smiles Brighter
Western Mail

Children's groups in Pembrokeshire have received awards for helping to improve young people's diet and dental health. The Eat Right Smile Bright campaign by Pembrokeshire Local Health Board has seen 13 organisations, including family centres, private day nurseries and playgroups, recognised for their achievements.
Debbie Mathias, manager of the Happy Days Childcare Centre, said, 'Since taking part in the Eat Right Smile Bright campaign, we have changed our menu and withdrawn many of the processed and convenience foods previously used.
'It has taken some time for the children to accept many of the new foods offered, but things are now starting to fall into place, with fresh, healthy and nutritious food being accepted and enjoyed by all. The children have also enjoyed taking part in projects regarding oral health.'

THE leader of the campaign against the fluoridation of drinking water has challenged health officials to justify such a scheme. John Warman, head of the Campaign Against Fluoridation, said there was no point adding fluoride to the water supply when food companies continued to lace pre-packaged food with sugar. He said most children preferred to quench their thirst with sugary drinks rather than tap water. He added that if the Welsh Assembly Government was serious about dental health it would tackle the amount of sugar in pre-packed foods and drinks instead of considering putting fluoride in the water.

(USA) Teenagers don't drink water.

Some Gains, Some Losses in War on Cavities
By Gary White
The Ledger
Jodi Levins of Winter Haven sees a cautionary tale in the mouths of her two sons. Jacob, 5, had no cavities during his most recent trip to the dentist. That used to be a routine outcome for her older son, Jeremy, 16. But about a year ago, Jeremy went in for a checkup and learned he had six cavities.

Antibiotic affects some children's teeth: US study

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Treating infant ear infections with the common antibiotic amoxicillin doubles children's risk they will suffer a problem later on with their permanent teeth, a study said on Monday.

Monday, October 03, 2005

Fluoride isn't the answer' (Wales)

Madeleine Brindley, Western Mail
CHILDREN'S groups in Pembrokeshire have received awards for helping to improve young people's diet and dental health.The Eat Right Smile Bright campaign by Pembrokeshire Local Health Board has seen 13 organisations, including family centres, private day nurseries and playgroups, recognised for their achievements.Debbie Mathias, manager of the Happy Days Childcare Centre, said, "Since taking part in the Eat Right Smile Bright campaign, we have changed our menu and withdrawn many of the processed and convenience foods previously used.
Story continues
"It has taken some time for the children to accept many of the new foods offered, but things are now starting to fall into place, with fresh, healthy and nutritious food being accepted and enjoyed by all. The children have also enjoyed taking part in projects regarding oral health."
THE leader of the campaign against the fluoridation of drinking water has challenged health officials to justify such a scheme.John Warman, head of the Campaign Against Fluoridation, said there was no point adding fluoride to the water supply when food companies continued to lace pre-packaged food with sugar. He said most children preferred to quench their thirst with sugary drinks rather than tap water.
He added that if the Welsh Assembly Government was serious about dental health it would tackle the amount of sugar in pre-packed foods and drinks instead of considering putting fluoride in the water.A REVIEW of care packages for patients in Carmarthenshire will help to identify which services are the responsibility of the NHS and which are the responsibility of the local authority social services.
Carmarthenshire Local Health Board has agreed to give social services a four-week breathing space in which changes in the balance of responsibility are identified.
The move comes after the Welsh Assembly Government said significant changes needed to be made in the provision of health and social care.The NHS is responsible for funding a range of services to meet the needs of people who need long-term physical or mental health care, while other services are the responsibility of social services.

Sunday, October 02, 2005

Alex Jones interviews Dr. Paul Connett

Dr. Connett is the nation's foremost scientist opposed to water fluoridation. He teaches Chemistry at St. Lawrence University and recently gave a presentation to the EPA on the dangers of fluoridation.

(Audio file well worth listening to)

Saturday, October 01, 2005

Good Hard Hitting Australian Letter

Fluoride isnt the answer
LEO J. Burkes observations (The Border Mail, September 21) of the supposed efficacy of Aucklands fluoridated water is at odds with those of Aucklands former principal dental officer, Dr John Colquhoun, who played a major role in having Aucklands water supply fluoridated. See www.fluoride-journal.com/|98-31-2/312103.htm: “The evidence that changed my mind about water fluoridation” by John Colquhoun, former advocate.

Fluoridated Perth has a massive dental problem with “Toddlers as young as one year having general anaesthetics to remove or crown rotten teeth with about 20 children a week being given a general anaesthetic for extensive reconstructive dentistry and a further seven for extractions.” (The West Australian, June 26, 2004)

Further, boys exposed to fluoride in tap water during their 6th, 7th and 8th years have been found to have a 7.2-fold increase in developing the often-fatal bone cancer osteosarcoma during their teenage years. Harvards Prof Chester Douglass (chairman of the Department of Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology at the School of Dental Medicine) is presently under investigation for suppressing these findings. Prof Douglass also works for Colgate During animal studies, radiation is the only other substance found to cause osteosarcoma. Adding a poisonous, carcinogenic substance to the water supply is not an antidote for a poor diet and a lack of dental hygiene. AILSA BOYDEN,

Australian Fluoridation Information Network