UK - From National Pure Water Association
From National Pure Water Association - 020 8220 9168
This week Health Secretary, Alan Johnson is expected to call for more health authorities to consider fluoridation.
A spokesman for National Pure Water Association said:
"By presenting fluoridation as a means of preventing tooth decay Health Secretary Alan Johnson confirms the practice is medication. Fluoridation is carried out by water companies in violation of their customers' human right to refuse consent to any medical intervention. Section 58 of the Water Act 2003 is therefore bad law as it conflicts with other UK, and EU law."
"The NHS-funded York Review (2000) was unable find any high quality research to support claims of efficacy or safety for the practice, which began in 1945. York rejected BASCD surveys as they do not take any confounding factors into account."
"Fluoridated West Midlands spends far more on dental health per head of population when compared with unfluoridated Manchester. In Wolverhampton, when fluoridation rose from 32% to 100% in 1997, in the five years to 2002 expenditure on dental health more than doubled and the number of preventative procedures, which could include fissure sealants on back teeth, increased by 50%. Over the same period dental health spending in Manchester and Lancashire was cut. Clearly, it is targeted expenditure that reduces health inequalities, fluoridation is literally money down the drain."
"Past consultations on fluoridation have involved an opinion poll of a fraction of 1% of the target community who were asked a leading question - 'Do you think fluoride should be added to water if it can reduce tooth decay?' Even if a community rejects fluoridation, Statutory Instrument No. 921 2005 allows a Strategic Health Authority to ignore this by giving greater weight to views it considers more cogent - ones that favour fluoridation."
Notes
1 "Medicinal product: Any substance or combination of substances presented as having properties for treating or preventing disease in human beings" [our emphasis]. Directive 2004/27/EC on medicinal products for human use.
2 Dental health expenditure comment based upon a review of Dental Practice Board Data by Chris Holdcroft in attached documents - Other Side of the Coin (page 16) and Wolverhampton Summary.
3 Opinion poll question - "Do you think fluoride should be added to water if it can reduce tooth decay?" Source - British Fluoridation Society website.
4 "Outcome of consultation 5. A Strategic Health Authority shall not proceed with any step regarding fluoridation arrangements that falls within section 89(2) of the Act unless, having regard to the extent of support for the proposal and the cogency of the arguments advanced, the Authority are satisfied that the health arguments in favour of proceeding with the proposal outweigh all arguments against proceeding."
Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 921 The Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations 2005.
This week Health Secretary, Alan Johnson is expected to call for more health authorities to consider fluoridation.
A spokesman for National Pure Water Association said:
"By presenting fluoridation as a means of preventing tooth decay Health Secretary Alan Johnson confirms the practice is medication. Fluoridation is carried out by water companies in violation of their customers' human right to refuse consent to any medical intervention. Section 58 of the Water Act 2003 is therefore bad law as it conflicts with other UK, and EU law."
"The NHS-funded York Review (2000) was unable find any high quality research to support claims of efficacy or safety for the practice, which began in 1945. York rejected BASCD surveys as they do not take any confounding factors into account."
"Fluoridated West Midlands spends far more on dental health per head of population when compared with unfluoridated Manchester. In Wolverhampton, when fluoridation rose from 32% to 100% in 1997, in the five years to 2002 expenditure on dental health more than doubled and the number of preventative procedures, which could include fissure sealants on back teeth, increased by 50%. Over the same period dental health spending in Manchester and Lancashire was cut. Clearly, it is targeted expenditure that reduces health inequalities, fluoridation is literally money down the drain."
"Past consultations on fluoridation have involved an opinion poll of a fraction of 1% of the target community who were asked a leading question - 'Do you think fluoride should be added to water if it can reduce tooth decay?' Even if a community rejects fluoridation, Statutory Instrument No. 921 2005 allows a Strategic Health Authority to ignore this by giving greater weight to views it considers more cogent - ones that favour fluoridation."
Notes
1 "Medicinal product: Any substance or combination of substances presented as having properties for treating or preventing disease in human beings" [our emphasis]. Directive 2004/27/EC on medicinal products for human use.
2 Dental health expenditure comment based upon a review of Dental Practice Board Data by Chris Holdcroft in attached documents - Other Side of the Coin (page 16) and Wolverhampton Summary.
3 Opinion poll question - "Do you think fluoride should be added to water if it can reduce tooth decay?" Source - British Fluoridation Society website.
4 "Outcome of consultation 5. A Strategic Health Authority shall not proceed with any step regarding fluoridation arrangements that falls within section 89(2) of the Act unless, having regard to the extent of support for the proposal and the cogency of the arguments advanced, the Authority are satisfied that the health arguments in favour of proceeding with the proposal outweigh all arguments against proceeding."
Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 921 The Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations 2005.
posted by Bill at
12:40 PM
12 Comments:
Oh joy, whilst the government is at it poison the well. As flouride only has benefits topically why put it in the water?
Its a drug/poison , there are no controls that will be able to protect against those who drink a LOT of water in a day - those who have kidney problems or are too small to be able to cope with poisoned water.What a great idea government, carry on .. I'll switch the lights off on my way out.
By
Anonymous, at 03 February, 2008
I saw this in todays paper, I am not happy in the slightest, I thought we were safe. Anyone know how I get involved to fight this?
By
Anonymous, at 03 February, 2008
From John Graham of the NPWA
Fluoridation will hit the news next week when Health Secretary Alan Johnson speaks in favour of the practice, possibly on Tuesday. Four national Sunday papers have been in touch and have received the statement below with supporting attachments. The BBC has also made contact and will be interviewing one of our Manchester members and Elizabeth, possibly on Monday. Tomorrow we will endeavour to get our statement out to local media. If you have local media contacts, let me have the name of the paper or radio station, switchboard number, newsdesk/editorial email address and we will add them to the list.
By
Bill, at 03 February, 2008
We live in the Severn Trent area and make a round trip of 120 miles a fortnight to collect drinking water from a Malvern spring. We wouldn't do this unless we thought it was absolutely necessary.
Being in our 50s and 60s, we know the importance of drinking at least 8 glasses of good water daily.
Neither of us want to succumb to Altzheimers, kidney disease, swollen ankles, headaches, acid reflux and the many more dehydration related dis-eases that catch up with you as you get older.
One of the most important aspects of consuming the waste product of aluminium smelting, is the downgrading of children's I.Qs.
While preaching the need for better education, the government (all kinds) wantonly follows Hitler's campaign to pacify the masses. Fluoridation of the water was his main weapon in the concentration camps. Russia also used it in the Gulags.
All cries for the abandonment of this practice from a huge delegation of dentists and doctors in the U.S. has been ignored, it wasn't even reported in the media.
Some states are now spending more money on the effects of fluoride on the teeth, from mottling down to complete rotting, than they did before any fluoridation programmes were introduced.
All this information can be found on the web, for those that are interested.
However, it all comes down to money again, and of course, the painless taking away of people's rights to choose whether to accept forced medication or not.
Great amounts of money are received from the aluminium smelters so that we poison ourselves with their waste product.
We, the people, can protest, write petitions, complain to our MPs, or write posts like this one, but we cannot replace all government with law-makers who have our best interests at heart.
The media play their part, by repeating parrot fashion what they are required to say by their masters. It is a massive web of collusion and mis-information, and I see no end to it.
If fluoride subdues the population so that governments get what they want, while making them money, they are in a win win situation, and as long as they aren't required to ingest the poison, they see no reason to change.
By
Richard Webb, at 03 February, 2008
Do any of you drink tea, out of interest?
Just wondering, because you're looking at about five times the fluoride concentration of fluoridated tap water here, regardless of the concentration of the water used to make the tea in the first place. [Tea made from high fluoride water causes less leaching of fluorides from the tea leaves than tea made from low fluoride water.]
Perhaps you should be looking at banning tea as well?...
By
Anonymous, at 03 February, 2008
In response to gwawdiwr,
You seem to be missing the point here, we all have the right to choose whether we drink tea or not.
Regardless of how much fluoride you believe that tea contains, and I'm trying to work out if you are talking about natural fluoride or sodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6)the poisonous waste product,it is forced medication.
If you are willing to be forcefully medicated, regardless of how harmless you believe that medication to be, then that is your choice. It is not mine.
By
Anonymous, at 03 February, 2008
In response to anonymous, I'm pointing out that tea contains various fluoride compounds, and until I made you aware of the fact, you hadn't even considered it as an issue. [The source of the fluoride compound is irrelevant btw - industrial byproducts are commonly used in the water industry for treatment - where do you think the ferric chloride used in dosing to remove particulates comes from? It's derived from spent metal pickling liquors in the main.]
So there you were, blissfully drinking tea at around 4 times the dosage that you'd get from fluoridated water whilst still worrying about fluoridation.
What you have demonstrated is that 'assumed risk' is far more acceptable to you than 'non-assumed risk.' In this, you are following the majority of the population. Doesn't make the risks any different though. You're still at greater risk to your health from drinking tea than you are from drinking fluoridated water. Which rather puts it all into context.
As an environmental scientist, I have no issue with fluoridation of water supplies. Sure, it's an unknown risk - but in the great scheme of things? There's plenty more to get het up about.
In response to the people who travel to get water from a Malvern spring btw - you are willingly travelling many miles a week (with the attendant environmental impact that this causes) in order to stock up on water of a worse quality than standard tap water? And then you seek to justify this with some historically incorrect bilge about the Nazi's and Stalin? [Neither of whom were particular about any form of water treatment in their detention facilities as far as I know, given that they weren't overly concerned with the public health of the inmates].
Congratulations. You have just invoked Godwins Law...
By
Anonymous, at 04 February, 2008
Fluoride, this topic needs sorting.
We all know we can't trust the government at all, what is their REAL reason for national fluoridation? Do some research... NWO...
I for one will be cutting my throat on youtube or something similar if this goes ahead, as that will be quicker and less painful than the dehydration I would be suffering when my source of water is removed.
By
Anonymous, at 04 February, 2008
I am happy for you (as an environmental scientist)that you willingly choose to ingest poisons. As I said before, that is your choice and you will live or die by that choice.
My right to choose has been taken away from me.
You are, of course, entirely wrong in your belief that Germany and Russia sought to control prison populations by dosing their water with fluoride. There is a great deal of documentation and witness evidence to prove that they did this.
As you say, it was nothing to do with health, but everything to do with control.
As a 'scientist', does it not concern you that so many of your peers are beginning to realize the truth, or do you dismiss any nay sayer in a cavalier fashion. It does beg the question about who is 'funding' your science.
With reference to the couple who choose to fetch water.If you truly believe that fresh spring water, regularly checked for quality, is inferior to dead, chlorinated, fluoridated tap water, there is nothing more to say. I use the same spring, and I don't drink black fermented tea. But that is my choice.
I will believe that fluoridated water has no detrimental affects when the centre of Oxford (UK) is fluoridated.
This is the city where the elite colleges are situated, and where there is still a great deal of scientific research happening.No mention of fluoride here!
You will, of course, feel it necessary to defend your position, as most scientists are unwilling to give any ground, however shaky their beliefs. Time will tell, and your words may well come back to haunt you.
As to laws of the Universe, I am not a scientist, and so not privy to this particular 'law'. They come and go with regularity, and haven't been known to win any arguments yet. I believe Einstein is now being questioned.
By
Anonymous, at 04 February, 2008
THE PURE AIR ACT SAYS IT IS ILLEGAL TO EJECT FLUORIDE OUT OF CHIMNEYS, SO IT SI OK FOR US TI DRINK IT. ASK A FIFTH FORM STUDENT TO LOOK AT THE PERIODIC CHEMISTRY CHART AND SEE HOW THIS RAT POISON REACTS. wHY DO MOST OF THE EUROPEON COUNTRIES BAN AND HAVE BANNED FLUORIDE? THE USA A STRONG ADVOCATE OF FLUORIDE IS NOW THINKING OF A BAN. IF YOU WANT FLUORIDE USE IT IN TOOTHEPASTE AND COKE, COMBINED WITH DRINKING WATER THIS WILL THEN SEE OFF A LARGE PROPORTION OF THE POPULATION AND CAUSE ILLNESS WHICH THE PHARMA COMPANIES EARN A FORTUNE IN DRUGS TO TREAT THE CAUSE WHICH COULD BE ADVERTED AT SOURCE. DR G F.
By
Anonymous, at 12 February, 2008
It is about our right to choose, if the government are so concerned about the teeth of poor children in this country then why dont they introduce a testing scheme to determine which individual child needs a supplement and administer it topically to them? We are talking about just 1/6 of a tooth improvement compared to the unknown risks of many different conditions the worse case scenario death! Wake-up people we're being subdued by poisoning!!!
By
epiphany, at 02 April, 2008
Your protest was short lived and had no affect.
They just know they have you where they want you. Apathetic and watching the soaps !
Rule BRITANIA and God save the children who else will?
By
Anonymous, at 10 February, 2010
Post a Comment
<< Home