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

UK Against Fluoridation

Saturday, February 28, 2009

Peter Ward BDA and Barry Cockcroft CDO

Uk - Southampton


UK - Southampton protest

UK - 'Yes' to fluoridation – amid waves of protest

'Yes' to fluoridation – amid waves of protest
27th Feb 2009
Southampton is to forge ahead with plans to add fluoride to its tap water, despite protests.
The final decision was made at a meeting of the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) following three months of public consultation in Southampton and parts of south-west Hampshire.
It makes Southampton the first place in England to introduce fluoridation since Health Minister Alan Johnson's ‘fluoridation for all' proposal in February 2008.

The special meeting, held at the city's St Mary's stadium, attracted representatives from both sides of the fluoridation argument, including chief dental officer Barry Cockcroft, representatives from the British Dental Association (BDA), MPs, members of pressure group, Hampshire Against Fluoridation, and other anti-fluoride campaigners.

The plans had been put forward in a bid to improve the city's poor record on dental health in children, particularly in more deprived areas.

The decision comes after the public consultation in which more than 10,000 people had their say.
More than seven out of ten of all respondents who live in the affected area said they were against the plans, while an independent phone survey also showed more people against the scheme than for it.

But Southampton City Primary Care Trust (PCT), who made the proposals, said that the public vote could not be the deciding factor and that medical evidence shows fluoridation will reduce tooth decay – and failed to back up claims of serious negative side effects.

The PCT also says other measures to beat tooth decay have not worked, and fluoridation is the most effective method left available.

A Department of Health spokesman welcomes the decision. He said: ‘We believe that fluoridation is a scientifically supported and effective means of addressing health inequalities by reducing tooth decay in children and adults, especially those from poorer backgrounds.

Story continued on page 4South Central Strategic Health Authority's decision on fluoridation has been made following a 14-week consultation, during which the views of local people were listened to, and taking into account medical evidence and the oral health needs of the people of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton and Netley.'

The British Dental Association also welcomed the move. BDA scientific adviser, Professor Damien Walmsley, said: ‘The BDA commends South Central's decision as we believe that fluoridation is a safe and effective method of reducing dental decay and oral health inequalities. The significance of today's decision is not confined to the people it will affect directly. Other SHAs in England have been waiting to see if South Central – as the first SHA to consult on fluoridation since the law changed in 2003 – would succeed before launching their own consultation.'

Now the decision has been approved by the SHA's board, the amount of fluoride in the water will be increased from 0.08 parts per million to one part per million by 2010 at the earliest. The SHA will enter legal negotiations with Southern Water to determine how the process will be carried out and how much it will cost.

The forces ranged against the plans included Hampshire Against Fluoridation, Hampshire County Council and local Liberal Democrat MPs Sandra Gidley (Romsey) and Chris Huhne (Eastleigh).

MP Sandra Gidley said: ‘The board members have got this completely wrong and have chosen to ride roughshod over the overwhelming opinion of the public. Whilst there is a lot of research on the subject of water fluoridation, much of it – like the board's judgement – is sub-standard. It would be far cheaper and more effective to provide toothpaste and brushes to those who can't afford it rather than introducing a mass medication programme.'

Stephen Peckham, a member of Hampshire Against Fluoridation and a reader in health policy at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, added to the argument against the plans.

He said: ‘Clearly, the SHA officers are determined that fluoridation should go ahead whatever. The York Review authors point out that there is no evidence to demonstrate that water fluoridation reduces inequalities. Neither is there any evidence to demonstrate that at the historically low levels of dental decay in the majority of children (12 year old rates are better than the UK average) water fluoridation will have any effect. Yet water fluoridation will cause an increase in dental fluorosis with children requiring repeated remedial treatment.

He added: ‘This decision to implement water fluoridation in Southampton is not evidence based, safe or ethical.'

Other proposals for fluoridation are in the pipeline elsewhere in the country – including Manchester – but officials were believed to be watching developments in Southampton before committing to the consultation process.

31 studies in the journal Obesity Reviews has found that most did not uncover any link between the amount of sugar consumed and tooth decay.

Modern lifestyle affects tooth decay
Scientists believe that modern lifestyle habits may have a greater role to play in preventing tooth decay than the kinds of food people eat.
Many experts have argued that sugar is the main cause of tooth decay, but a review of 31 studies in the journal Obesity Reviews has found that most did not uncover any link between the amount of sugar consumed and tooth decay.
The reviewers concluded that the effects of modern lifestyle habits, including fluoride toothpaste, good oral hygiene and health education, may outweigh the effects of food on tooth decay.
Professor Monty Duggal, a consultant and head of paediatric dentistry at Leeds dental institute and author of the review, commented: "Nowadays, it's not enough to just look at what we eat when talking about tooth decay, as other factors seem to be as important.
"Fluoride toothpaste changes the effect that some foods have on the teeth, as do other good oral hygiene practices."
Professor Duggal believes that future research should look at a number of lifestyle factors that may affect tooth decay.
Figures obtained by the Conservative party recently revealed that more than 36,000 children are admitted to hospital with tooth decay every year.

Really?

Friday, February 27, 2009

UK Southampton Daily Echo


UK - Southampton

Fluoride & Chemtrails AVR 02/18/09 - 4/6

UK - Southampton fluoride decision is a travesty of local democracy.

Southampton fluoride decision is a travesty of local democracy.
Posted By: Philip Johnston at Feb 26, 2009 at 17:57:36 [General]
Fluoride is to be added to the water supply of Southampton - the first city in 40 years to adopt the policy. The decision has caused huge controversy in the south coast town. This is a key victory for those who believe in adding fluoride to the water and other cities are expected to follow suit, with Bristol among those looking to do so. While a lot of people think their supplies are fluoridated, only five million people live in areas where they are, mainly in the West Midlands and the east of England. For years ministers have wanted to see fluoridation expanded beyond the areas currently covered by natural and artificial schemes. But water companies were reluctant to fluoridate for fear of being sued and did not want responsibility for public health decisions. So the government brought in new legislation in 2003 to give the 28 strategic health authorities, rather than the water companies, the final say over whether fluoride should be added to the supply.

The health authorities now have the power to compel water companies - which will be indemnified against any legal liabilities - to put fluoride in the mains supply, though they are required to consult the local community before they do so. A consultation exercise found that around 75 per cent of the 200,000 residents were opposed to the plan -but they were overruled. After all, they only have to drink the water. All that was required was that a consultation was carried out: the local health authority did not have to abide by its findings. This is a travesty of local democracy.

Proponents maintain that since fluoride appears to reduce the incidence of dental caries and there is no evidence it is harmful, why should anyone object? Opponents say the risks from fluoride are unknown, the science is questionable and those studies that have been carried out have been equivocal in their conclusions about safety. I say that if people want to protect their teeth they should use fluoride toothpaste. Medication, beneficial or otherwise, should not be added to the water supply at all.

However it is dressed up, fluoridation is enforced mass medication and it is possible to object to such a programme whether you think it is good for you or not. The Government acknowledged this by allowing a free vote when the measure went through Parliament; but, in reality, ministers favour a move to wider fluoridation as part of their nanny state agenda.

UK - Southampton Fluoride in the water - even if you don't want it

Fluoride in the water - even if you don't want it
By Jenny Hope
Last updated at 1:44 AM on 27th February 2009
Comments (0)
In the water: Adding fluoride to water has been called 'mass medication' by critics
A health trust has become the first to force through a move to add fluoride to tap water to fight tooth decay in children.
The decision was made using new laws to introduce fluoridation, although three in four members of the public and a county council opposed it.
Adding fluoride to water has been described by critics as 'mass medication' of the population because, unlike chlorine, it is not added to make supplies safe.
Around 200,000 people in Southampton will be affected in an area where four in ten children have a filling by school age.
Dentists said it would reduce the number of decayed teeth.
Just 10 per cent of England's water is fluoridated, covering 5.5million people, mainly in the north-east and west Midlands.
The last fluoridation scheme was introduced in 1985, but the Health Secretary last year called for further schemes after consultation, saying most people were in favour.
The decision by South Central Strategic Health Authority to back fluoridation is the first under 2003 laws giving health authorities powers to demand the service from water companies.
It gives the go-ahead to Southampton City Primary Care Trust to ask Southern Water to act, probably by 2010.
But a three-month consultation on the plans found 72 per cent of 10,000 local people were opposed. Hampshire County Council was also against concentration of the compound being increased from 0.08 parts to one part per million.
Bob Deans, chief executive for Southampton City PCT, said: 'A water fluoridation scheme, when introduced with continued oral health promotion, will be the most effective way of reducing the large numbers of tooth fillings and extractions currently needed by children in Southampton.'
Dr Andrew Mortimore, Public Health Director, said the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation 'has been confirmed by a large number of respected health organisations'.
In the West Midlands water has contained added fluoride since 1964 and rates of tooth decay, especially in children, are lower.
Campaigners, however, believe fluoride could be a risk to general health.
John Spottiswoode, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, said the decision was 'deeply unethical'.
But Professor Damien Walmsley, scientific adviser to the British Dental Association, said he looked forward to 'fewer children in Southampton having to endure the pain and discomfort of decayed teeth or the trauma of having a tooth extracted as a result of adopting this initiative'.

Australia - Fluoride issue comes back to bite Bligh

Fluoride issue comes back to bite Bligh
Gabrielle Dunlevy
February 27, 2009 - 10:24AM
The decision to add fluoride to Queensland's drinking water has come back to bite Premier Anna Bligh on day five of the election campaign.

Taking calls on Rockhampton radio station 4RO on Friday, Ms Bligh took a barrage of criticism on health issues, particularly fluoridation..............

NHS force fluoride increase

Local BBC TV report on fluoridation decision in Southampton

What a farce this whole consultation was they never took notice of anything or anybody. One member showed how ignorant they were by asking Prof John Newton, one of the board members, was fluorosis a permanent thing?

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Fluoride & Chemtrails AVR 02/18/09 - 3/6

UK - Complaint over fluoridation vote

Complaint over fluoridation vote
11:50am Wednesday 25th February 2009
Comments (9) Have your say »
By Jon Reeve »
A FORMER Southampton mayor is being investigated over claims she broke council rules by influencing a vote on controversial plans for fluoridation in the city.
Labour councillor Parvin Damani spoke passionately in favour of the scheme to add fluoride to nearly 200,000 Hampshire residents’ water, and voted to back it when city councillors examined the proposals last November.
But her actions are now being studied after a complaint was lodged arguing she should not have been allowed to join in the debate because she holds a post with the health trust behind the plans.
Anti-fluoride campaigners say her intervention in the meeting was crucial.
John Spottiswoode, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, said: “The even-handedness of the vote in the city council was undermined and the whole vote should be wiped from the records as unsound, or re-done.”
Southampton was the only council to back the fluoridation plans, which would affect residents in two-thirds of the city, as well as about 36,000 people in Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
Hampshire County, Eastleigh Borough, New Forest District and Test Valley Borough councils all passed motions opposing the scheme.
“It was an extremely important vote because if Southampton City Council had voted against fluoridation then every single council would have voted against fluoridation,” said Mr Spottiswoode. “That would have killed the whole proposal then and there.
“As it is, Ms Damani could be responsible single-handedly for tipping enough votes to mean that Southampton becomes fluoridated, much against the wishes of the vast majority of citizens.”
Cllr Damani is a member of Southampton City Primary Care Trust’s senior public health team. She works as an equality and human rights advisor.
The trust proposed fluoridation as a way of combating poor dental health among the city’s youngsters, particularly in more deprived areas.
The board of South Central Strategic Health Authority, which oversees the region’s healthcare, will vote on the plans tomorrow.
In a free vote city councillors came out 26 to 18 in favour of fluoridation.
Cllr Steve Sollitt declared an interest and left the meeting because he works as an accountant for the NHS. Cllr Damani also declared an interest as an employee of the health service, but remained, spoke and cast a vote.
She told the meeting. “This is not a poison. Nobody has died from it.”
A council spokesman said the authority is unable to comment or confirm an investigation is ongoing. Cllr Damani declined to comment.

UK - Health Chiefs In Fluoride On Tap Dilemma

Health Chiefs In Fluoride On Tap Dilemma
11:41pm UK, Wednesday February 25, 2009
Thomas Moore, health correspondent
The decision whether to add controversial chemical fluoride to water supplies will be made by health chiefs today.
Southampton Primary Care Trust says it is the only way to reduce tooth decay in children across the city.
But campaigners fear fluoride has health risks. And they say adding it to tap water amounts to mass medication.
If the plans are approved, 195,000 people in Southampton and South Hampshire could be drinking fluoride in their water within months.
And the rest of the country could follow.
The Department of Health is putting pressure on the NHS to use powers under the Water Act 2003 to demand water companies add the chemical.
In Southampton, four in every 10 children have a filling by the time they start school.Dentist Ragini Ramchandani says some parents fail to brush their children's teeth properly. Not even giving out free toothpaste has helped.
She said: "Dental health has improved in Southampton over the last 40 years. A lot of that is due to fluoridated toothpaste."But what has not improved is the inequalities between people with good and poor dental health. That gap has not closed at all."
But independent experts at York University have concluded there is only limited evidence that adding fluoride to water reduces decay.
Nobody knows what it can do. So I say err on the side of caution and don't put it in the water. And it warns any benefit comes at the cost of increasing the number of children developing mottled teeth from consuming too much fluoride.
The uncertain scientific evidence has led to an angry debate between those for and against fluoride.

Jo-Anne Carey ensures her two children brush their teeth properly twice a day with a fluoride toothpaste.She doesn't want an additional - and unregulated - dose in the tap water."What is this toxin going to do in the body for the next 40 years? It's cumulative. It sits in the tissue and grows.
"Nobody knows what it can do. So I say err on the side of caution and don't put it in the water."
The decision on whether to give Southampton Primary Care Trust the go-ahead will be taken by the regional health authority.
Campaigners claim the public consultation has been a sham and that NHS South Central will bow to pressure from the Department of Health.
But chief executive Jim Easton insists the decision will be taken based on the evidence.
"Let me be very clear. We have received no direct or indirect pressure from the Department of Health, ministers or senior officials to make a decision one way or the other."
Five million people in England and Wales have been drinking water with added fluoride for several decades.But other water companies refused to add the chemical until its safety had been resolved.

UK - Flawed Science in Last-Minute Southampton Fluoridation Reports

NEW YORK, February 26 /PRNewswire/ --
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) hired Bazian Ltd. to review fluoride safety concerns raised by a 2006 report of the US National Research Council (NRC), and by 18 studies linking fluoride to lowered IQ in children. Bazian's work reveals a lack of understanding of toxicology.
The 500-page NRC report reviewed over 1,000 scientific studies. It concluded fluoride is likely to cause increases in bone fractures, arthritis-like symptoms, and severe dental fluorosis. It also concluded fluoride is a possible neurotoxin and endocrine disruptor. The report found that certain groups are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects: infants, children, diabetics, and those who consume larger amounts of water.
Bazian dismissed these concerns, claiming the NRC report is not relevant to Southampton because it relied mostly on studies where the water fluoride level was 2 mg/L or higher. Southampton plans 1 mg/L. This dismissal reveals a lack of understanding of principles of toxicology. Public health policy commonly requires a margin of safety of 100-fold, or at minimum, 10-fold. The 2-fold margin should raise a red flag.
A safety margin is required when extrapolating from scientific studies to actual real-world populations, such as Southampton, because people vary so much in water consumption and sensitivity to fluoride. For these reasons, Nobel Laureate Dr. Arvid Carlsson advised the SHA "Fluoridation is an obsolete practice. It goes against all principles of modern pharmacology."
Bazian also dismissed the 18 IQ studies linking fluoride to reduced IQ because fluoride levels were higher than 1 mg/L. But the lowest level at which fluoride was found to reduce IQ, 1.8 mg/L, clearly offers no adequate margin of safety to protect all the children of Southampton.
According to Dr. Paul Connett, director of the Fluoride Action Network, "Incredibly, the UK has never done a study seeking evidence of neurotoxicity, so the existing studies are the best available. The evidence from the 18 studies carried out in non-fluoridated countries is certainly strong and consistent enough to warrant the application of the Precautionary Principle, especially since the issue has a significant consequence for children."
Another flawed report from the SHA dismissed the risk of fluoridated water used to make infant formula. Baby formula reconstituted with fluoridated water contains 250 times more fluoride than Mothers' milk. The pro-fluoride American Dental Association in 2006 advised that fluoridated water should NOT be used to make up baby formula. However, a February 19 report by John Newton, Regional Director of Public Health, and SHA Board Member, disagrees, stating "It is not a recommendation to avoid fluoridated water...we do not believe the [precautionary] principle should be applied in the case of water fluoridation in Southampton..."
The Achilles' heel of fluoridation proponents is that they cannot give credence to any report that finds evidence of harm from fluoride. By denying everything, they end up appearing as scientific illiterates. This situation pervades the selected "scientific evidence" upon which the SHA has chosen to base their decision.
-- Links to statements from scientists urging the SHA to reject fluoridation at http://www.fluoridealert.org/southhampton.html
-- Links to SHA's key documents at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/southampton.sha.htm
-- NRC 2006 review of fluoride: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Fluoride & Chemtrails AVR 02/18/09 - 2/6

Canada - letter for fluoridation

Fluoride in water an important process
Posted By
Posted 19 hours ago
Editor:
I was alarmed to read a letter questioning the benefits of fluoridation of public water supplies. The author of the letter suggests fluoride is ineffective and negatively affects human health.
As President of the Ontario Dental Association, I want to set the record straight on the overwhelming evidence of the safety and benefits of water fluoridation and the strong support it has from the scientific community and international health organizations.
According to a Health Canada report released in 2007 by a panel of medical experts, water fluoridation in the correct amount is both safe and effective.
Furthermore, Health Canada's website states they "support water fluoridation as a public health measure to prevent dental decay," and that "the big advantage of water fluoridation is that it benefits all residents in a community regardless of age, socioeconomic status, education or employment."
But if this isn't enough evidence for you, international experts such as the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta, Ga., has recognized the fluoridation of drinking water to prevent dental decay as "one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century." The CDC encourages the continuation and expansion of community water fluoridation and offers tips on how to reduce the risk of fluorosis ( http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/reducing_risk. htm).
The U. S. Surgeon General also agrees: "Community water fluoridation continues to be the most cost-effective, equitable and safe means to provide protection from tooth decay in a community." The World Health Organization (WHO) believes that "universal access to fluoride for dental health is a part of the basic human right to life."
And finally, the American Dental Association estimates that every dollar invested in water fluoridation saves $38 in dental costs.
Toronto Public Health reported that dental decay is the most frequent condition suffered by children other than the common cold and is one of the leading causes of absences from school. Children are particularly vulnerable to tooth decay for numerous reasons, which seem rather less important than the reality -- children today suffer from tooth decay at an alarming rate. Water fluoridation is a cost-effective preventive strategy that will provide protective measures to Ontarians, especially children, regardless of their economic position.
These are the facts. Anything else is fear mongering.
Please take the time to get to know the facts about this important issue; they will make a tremendous difference to you and to your family. For more information and proof of the benefits of fluoridation, you can visit www.youroralhealth.ca.

I'd rather be a fearmonger than a fluoride pusher.

UK - Southampton Daily Echo

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Fluoride & Chemtrails AVR 02/18/09 - 4/6

UK - Southampton's Daily Echo

Monday, February 23, 2009

LibertyTUBE TV : Mandatory Medication pt.01

Uk - Southampton - Daily Echo

Sunday, February 22, 2009

UK - Southampton Consultation reveals strong opposition to fluoride proposals in Southampton

Consultation reveals strong opposition to fluoride proposals in Southampton
1:07pm Saturday 21st February 2009
Comments (7) Have your say »
By Jon Reeve »
THREE-quarters of people who responded to a three-month public consultation on controversial plans to add fluoride to Southampton’s tap water said that they did not want it.
An independent phone survey – designed to gauge the reaction of a cross-section of the population – also showed more people against the scheme than for it.
The results were last night hailed by antifluoridation campaigners, who said they show that the proposals must now be thrown out.
However, Southampton health chiefs who are behind the scheme say that a public vote cannot be the deciding factor on fluoridation, and other factors must also be taken into consideration.
South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA), which oversees the region’s healthcare and will make the final decision on fluoridation on Thursday, received more than 10,000 responses during its consultation.
Of those who live within the affected area – covering twothirds of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams – 72 per cent said that they do not want their water fluoridated, compared with 28 per cent who do.
With 32 per cent supporting the plans, city residents were more likely to be in favour than those in Eastleigh (25 per cent), Netley (19 per cent) and Totton (14 per cent).
All those figures compare starkly with responses from outside the affected area, which showed a 77 per cent level of backing.
Younger people were more likely to support the plans, with 29 per cent of under-20s saying that they are in favour, but just 14 per cent of those aged over 61 said that they approve.
In the phone poll, a representative sample of 2,000 residents were quizzed on their thoughts.
Again, more people opposed it than backed it, but the results were much closer.
While ten per cent admitted that they didn’t know and another 19 per cent said that they were neither for or against, 38 per cent replied that they do not want fluoridation. The remaining 32 per cent supported the plans.
Hampshire Against Fluoridation chairman John Spottiswoode said the results mean that the SHA must now reject fluoridation.
“Under Government legislation they have to get popular consent to do it, but they clearly haven’t got it,” he said.
“Presumably they won’t go ahead with it.”
A spokeswoman for Southampton City Primary Care Trust, which is behind the scheme, said the legislation states that the SHA must take a range of factors into consideration when making its decision.
“They include the extent of local support, the cogency of the arguments put forward, and the scientific evidence around water fluoridation,” she said. “Therefore the decision cannot be based on a simple count of the responses for or against the proposal.”

UK - Southampton Consultation reveals strong opposition to fluoride proposals in Southampton

Consultation reveals strong opposition to fluoride proposals in Southampton
1:07pm Saturday 21st February 2009
Comments (7) Have your say »
By Jon Reeve »
THREE-quarters of people who responded to a three-month public consultation on controversial plans to add fluoride to Southampton’s tap water said that they did not want it.
An independent phone survey – designed to gauge the reaction of a cross-section of the population – also showed more people against the scheme than for it.
The results were last night hailed by antifluoridation campaigners, who said they show that the proposals must now be thrown out.
However, Southampton health chiefs who are behind the scheme say that a public vote cannot be the deciding factor on fluoridation, and other factors must also be taken into consideration.
South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA), which oversees the region’s healthcare and will make the final decision on fluoridation on Thursday, received more than 10,000 responses during its consultation.
Of those who live within the affected area – covering twothirds of Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams – 72 per cent said that they do not want their water fluoridated, compared with 28 per cent who do.
With 32 per cent supporting the plans, city residents were more likely to be in favour than those in Eastleigh (25 per cent), Netley (19 per cent) and Totton (14 per cent).
All those figures compare starkly with responses from outside the affected area, which showed a 77 per cent level of backing.
Younger people were more likely to support the plans, with 29 per cent of under-20s saying that they are in favour, but just 14 per cent of those aged over 61 said that they approve.
In the phone poll, a representative sample of 2,000 residents were quizzed on their thoughts.
Again, more people opposed it than backed it, but the results were much closer.
While ten per cent admitted that they didn’t know and another 19 per cent said that they were neither for or against, 38 per cent replied that they do not want fluoridation. The remaining 32 per cent supported the plans.
Hampshire Against Fluoridation chairman John Spottiswoode said the results mean that the SHA must now reject fluoridation.
“Under Government legislation they have to get popular consent to do it, but they clearly haven’t got it,” he said.
“Presumably they won’t go ahead with it.”
A spokeswoman for Southampton City Primary Care Trust, which is behind the scheme, said the legislation states that the SHA must take a range of factors into consideration when making its decision.
“They include the extent of local support, the cogency of the arguments put forward, and the scientific evidence around water fluoridation,” she said. “Therefore the decision cannot be based on a simple count of the responses for or against the proposal.”

UK - Southampton Fluoride decision is looming for Hampshire

Fluoride decision is looming for Hampshire
7:10am Sunday 22nd February 2009
By Jon Reeve »
THEY are the 12 people entrusted with deciding on one of the most divisive health issues to face Hampshire in generations.
A finance specialist, a retired Vodafone director, an ex-midwife and the former head of Hampshire’s social services are among those who must pick their way through the complex arguments surrounding controversial plans to improve Southampton’s poor dental health.
None of South Central Strategic Health Authority’s (SHA) board members has a specific background in dentistry, yet they must make up their minds on whether parts of the city’s water should be fluoridated.
On Thursday, the 12 will convene at a special meeting at Southampton’s St Mary’s Stadium, to consider plans to add the chemical to the water supply of nearly 200,000 county residents.
It marks the culmination of a fiercely contested three-month consultation in which thousands of people had their say as campaigners on both sides of the debate sought to prove their cases.
Southampton City Primary Care Trust, which proposed the scheme, says it will reduce tooth decay amongst the city’s children.
But opposition campaigners say fluoride brings dangerous side effects, and is an unethical form of massmedication.
More than 10,000 people submitted formal responses to the consultation, and another 2,000 were surveyed through an independent phone poll, while councillors across Hampshire gave their views.
But at the board meeting – the first to be held outside the authority’s Newbury headquarters and the only time it has debated just one item – the issue will come down to a simple poll of these 12 members of the panel.
Some of the board are full-time employees of the authority who have purely medical and public health backgrounds, while others bring their experiences from other walks of life to the table.
If seven or more vote one way, then their views will be carried and work will either begin towards introducing fluoride, or the plans will be abandoned.
If the vote is tied, then chairman Dr Geoffrey Harris – a former medical research scientist – will have the casting say.
“In terms of the legislation, the final decision rests with the SHA and that’s basically it – the decision doesn’t get reviewed by the Department of Health,” explained SHA campaigns manager, Kevin McNamara.
“But there is always recourse through the courts, and that’s a possibility that some people have mentioned.”
Should the board vote in favour of fluoridation then, subject to any legal challenge, the real work would begin.
The SHA says it has no firm idea when fluoride would actually start being added to tap water, or how much the scheme will ultimately cost.
Although the scheme has been considered in theory, including estimated costs, detailed preparation has not yet begun.
“None of that work has taken place or really been discussed because we didn’t want people to think we had premeditated the decision, nor do we want to waste that time if it’s not going ahead,” said Mr McNamara.
“There’s a significant amount of work that would have to be done.
“A lot of it would rest on discussions with the water company and getting the legal framework set up between them and the NHS.”

Premier Bligh reply of LIES



"What can we do, I ask you." We will be saying the same thing here in Southampton if the vote on Thursday echo's Bligh's intransigence.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

USA - Workers contain chemical spill in Chesterfield

Workers contain chemical spill in Chesterfield
By Matthew Hathaway
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
02/20/2009
UPDATED: 2:32 P.M.
Police and firefighters have contained about 200 gallons of fluoride that spill from a ruptured tanker truck at Missouri American Water's central plant in Chesterfield and they are now waiting for a private clean-up crew to remove the chemical, said Dave Nichols, fire marshal of the Monarch Fire Protection District.

An early report from Missouri American put the size of the spill at about 4,000 gallons, or the entire load of the truck. But, Nichols said, the truck's driver was able to flip an emergeny shut-off valve shortly after the spill was noticed.

Ann Dettmer, a spokeswoman for the water company, said the rupture occured at around 11 a.m. today in the parking lot of the plant, located at 901 Hog Hollow Road. She said that the truck's driver and two employees from the plant were taken to an area hospital for observation but that the extent of their injuries -- if any -- were not available.

Fluoride is added to drinking water as a public health measure because it kills bacteria and hardens tooth enamel. In concentrated form, the chemical can be a harmful skin irritant. Nichols said that when fluoride mixes with water, it turns into a more toxic acid and then can prove more difficult to contain and clean up. "We just lucked out that it was a dry day," he said.

Dettmer said there were no evacuations and no changes in operations at the water plant. Water quality, she said, is unaffected by the spill.

India - Doc plays good Samaritan to children suffering from fluorosis

...................The identification of the fluorosis-hit villages was done after head of the department of environmental science, A N College, Patna, Bihari Singh and his team visited the two villages. The result of the test of water samples of handpumps was alarming. Against the acceptable safety norm of 1.5 particle per million (ppm) of fluoride, the tests revealed that the content of fluoride was as high as 5 ppm. "The people of this area were badly affected due to physical and dental deformities," he said...........

If 5 ppm can do that why with all the fluoride we take in from other sources are the SHAs hell bent on fluoridating the UK?

UK - 12-year-olds have the healthiest teeth in Europe?

...............Shadow health minister Mike Penning said: 'Labour's decade in charge of NHS dentistry has resulted in a significant deterioration in the country's dental health.
'In particular, Labour have completely failed to make any meaningful progress in terms of preventative dentistry.
'Regrettably, with a new contract that woefully neglects prevention, these problems will only get worse in the future.
'Labour needs to stop dithering and take action to sort out the mess they have created of NHS dentistry.
'A good place to start would be to admit their mistakes and scrap the botched dental contract.'
In 2006/07, the two most common reasons for admission among children were acute upper respiratory infections, followed by premature birth and low birthweight.
Dental caries (tooth decay) came next, followed by viral infections and acute tonsillitis.
A spokesman for the Department of Health said: 'These allegations are misleading.
'The use of general anaesthesia in dentistry was moved from dental practices to hospitals as a safety measure in 2001 and the hospital admission statistics simply reflect this.
'Preventative oral healthcare has actually improved substantially thanks to the new dental contract.
'Dentists are now carrying out more fluoride varnishes than ever before and recent statistics from the World Health Organisation show that our 12-year-olds have the healthiest teeth in Europe.
'To claim we are doing nothing on preventative dentistry is simply wrong.
'All NHS dental practices now have access to evidence-based practical guidance on effective preventative treatments.'

UK - Southampton Daily Echo



Friday, February 20, 2009

From NYSCOF

Fluoridation Ineffective & Harmful, studies show
Over 2,100 professionals urge the US Congress to stop water fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted, citing scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html.
This election day, 53 US cities rejected fluoridation joining a growing list of communities saying 'No,' to fluoridation.
-- The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Canadas leading voice on environmental health issues, released a statement opposing fluoridation.
-- The National Kidney Foundation dropped its fluoridation support replacing it with this caution: Individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure.
-- Researchers reporting in the Oct 6 2007 British Medical Journal indicate that fluoridation never was proven safe or effective and may be unethical.
-- A qualitative review of ...studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ, concluded Tang el al., in 'Fluoride and Childrens Intelligence: A Meta-analysis in Biological Trace Element Research (e-published 8/10/08)
-- Scientific American editors wrote in January 2008, 'Some recent studies suggest that over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland'
-- A study in the Fall 2008 Journal of Public Health Dentistry reveals that cavity-free teeth have little to do with fluoride intake. Researchers report, 'The benefits of fluoride are mostly topicalwhile fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake.'
A Tennessee State legislator who is also an MD is urging all Tennessee Water Districts to stop fluoridation, reported a Tennessee newspaper on 11/29/08. At least 30 Tennessee water districts have already complied with his request.
On 1/5/09, the Burlington Board of Health recommended that Burlington cease fluoridation because fluoridation can harm some people.
On 1/6/09, a Canadian town, Drayton, stopped fluoridation, not to save money, but because it was in the best interests of residents, said the Mayor.
On 2/10/2009 Skagit County, WA officials reversed their 2007 fluoridation decision

Nobel Prize winner in Medicine, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, says, Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete.
Fluoride jeopardizes health - even at low levels deliberately added to public water supplies, according to data presented in a 2006 National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) report. Fluoride poses risks to the thyroid gland, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers and others and can severely damage children's teeth. At least three panel members advise avoiding fluoridated water.
More info:http://www.FluorideAction.net/health

Canada - Letter from Riverdale: Trouble with the water

Letter from Riverdale: Trouble with the water
Posted: February 19, 2009, 9:57 PM by Barry Hertz
Yes, I am one of the 68,000. That’s the number of homes in Toronto, built before 1955, that use lead pipes to link up to the city’s water service.
For 15 years I (and our growing family) have been blithely drinking water from the tap in a series of three lead-pipe homes, giving no thought to the lead we ingest in the process. It only took one trip to Riverdale, though, to put the fear of God into me.
That’s where, last night, Councillor Paula Fletcher (Riverdale) organized an open house with Toronto Public Health and Toronto Water, to hand out water sampling kits and get people appropriately freaked out about all the lead that is coursing around in our drinking water. The place was crawling with worried residents, and small wonder.
“I and my youngest child had elevated levels of lead,” says Alice Terpstra, who lived 30 years on Ravina Crescent in Riverdale (she recently moved to Scarborough.) I asked her what effect the lead had on her.
“Anemia, lowered immunity, tooth decay, tremors, insomnia, upset stomach,” she replied. “All these chronic drag-down kind of things.”
Charts at the open house showed that Toronto Water has lab tested 344 Riverdale homes for lead in the past year. Of those, 44 had lead above the acceptable level of 10 parts per billion. The culprit is the stretch of pipe from the water main to your home, about 50% of which belongs to the city, and 50% to the homeowner...........

Codex & Fluoride - Max Igan AVR 02/11/09 - 5/5

UK - Southampton Crunch meeting over Totton fluoridation plan

TOTTON residents will know next Thursday if fluoride is to be added to their water supply, when NHS executives meet to decide the plans.
About 8,000 people in the town could be affected by Southampton Primary Care Trust's proposals which, although targeted at the city, would include its neighbour because of the layout of the pipes.
During the three-month consulta-tion last year, more than 10,000 people responded and the results will be presented to the board of the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) at a public meeting in Southampton.
Its members will make the final decision whether or not to allow an increase in fluoride from its current level of 0.08 parts per million to one part per million. If approved, it will affect up to 195,000 people overall.
The trust argued its plans would help tackle tooth decay among children and adults in the city, which is worse than the national average in England despite a number of public health measures.
But opponents fear the controver-sial additive has harmful side effects, ranging from mottled teeth to some forms of cancer, and object to "forced medication". Others suspect Southampton fluoridation could encourage Hampshire Primary Care Trust to do the same.
Objectors included Totton and Eling Town Council, as well as the New Forest and Hampshire councils. New Forest East MP Julian Lewis has added his name to those calling on the SHA to reject the move.
He told the 'A&T': "I think they have to consider the general prin-ciple that you do not medicate an entire community just because some families are unwilling to properly educate their children in dental hygiene."
He also branded the consultation a "sham" and said: "This is like a Stalin-ist state or a banana republic that goes through the motions of follow-ing the constitution of the country when everybody knows that the whole thing is rigged from start to finish."
He has written to the health service ombudsman to complain about the way it was handled. If it wants a re-run consultation, Dr Lewis hoped that could delay fluoridation until after the next general election and a possible new government with different views.
However, Pennington district councillor Paul Hickman said he was in favour and wanted Hampshire Primary Care Trust to consider extending fluoride across the New Forest to help make up for too few NHS dentists.
He believed it was safe in minimal additions and said: "I would not say that the anti-fluoridation people should be put on the same level as the people who protested about the MMR vaccine but it is the same thing really.
"I am sure people are going to the dentist less because they have to pay for it. It is making things difficult for health authorities to keep dental decay down because of the lack of NHS dentistry."
If fluoridation is approved next week, the SHA will order Southern Water under the Water Fluoridation Regulations 2005 to add it to the supply. It would be the first time the new legislation has been used In this way.
A spokesman for the SHA said setting up the equipment and legal agreements for fluoridation could delay its introduction until 2010 at the earliest, and would probably be later. The meeting next Thursday; will be held at 2pm at St Mary's foot-ball stadium, Southampton.

From the Lymington Times 21st Feb

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Codex & Fluoride - Max Igan AVR 02/11/09 - 4/5

Soaring Autism Rates Linked to Environmental Causes

................Besides mercury, many chemicals in use today are also neuro-developmental toxins, i.e. they affect the growth of the brains, and these include brominated flame retardants (used in electronics and furniture), lead, pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls.

Other studies have shown that mothers who used pet flea shampoos had twice the likelihood of having autistic children, and that an association existed between autism and phthalates, substances used in cosmetics and vinyl. Ingredients in certain antibacterial soaps may have a part to play too, according to Dr Hertz-Picciotto, who is also a researcher at UC Davis` M.I.N.D. Institute, said to be a leading autism research facility.

In addition, there is fluoride in tap water - could it be playing a part, too? According to Dr Vyvyan Howard, a medical pathologist and toxicologist, and also President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, fluoride is a developmental toxin, a neurotoxin which may also affect the intelligence of the child. He feels there is no place for fluoride in our water supplies. Read more about this issue here: http://www.naturalnews.com/024855.html...........

USA - City council gives boot to fluoride

By ROD STETZERrod.stetzer@lee.netWednesday,
February 18, 2009 3:03 PM CST
Plugging holes in the budget concerned the Chippewa Falls City Council more Tuesday night than preventing dental decay.
The council voted 5-2 not to act on the Chippewa County Board of Health’s request to become the third municipality in the county to add fluoride. A potential price tag of over $200,000 was too much for Council Member Susan Zukowski.
“I can’t see adding anything else to the mix,” she said of what have been an additional cost in the budget.
She was joined by council members Jack Covill, Brian Flynn, Greg Dachel and Jason Anderson in voting not to take action. Robert Hoekstra and Council President Dennis Doughty voted against the resolution. Hoekstra is also a member of the county’s board of health.
Adding fluoride was also shot down in 2004, after voters soundly defeated an advisory referendum 70 to 30 percent.
The council’s latest decision pleased Karen Polzin, a Chippewa Falls resident who spoke against adding fluoride.
“Economically, I don’t think it’s feasible. Most of the water used in the city is industrial, so I think it’s a waste,” she said of fluoride.
“I feel that now is not the time to be spending any extra dollars,” she said, adding: “I don’t feel the city should be medicating its citizens.”
Sheryl Shipman, a registered nurse for 30 years, agreed.
“Dental cavities are not the result of a lack of fluoride but due to poor nutrition and a lack of dental hygiene. There is a dietary problem. . . None of us are lacking fluoride.”
But dentist Randy Larue said the U.S. Centers for Disease Control considers adding fluoride in water to have been one of the greatest public health achievements in the 20th Century.
Kent Vandehaar has been a dentist in Chippewa Falls for 28 years and is the president-elect of the Wisconsin Dental Association.
He served on a city committee that looked into the fluoride issue in 2004.
“It’s astounding the amount of dental decay in this town,” Vandehaar said, who added that evidence shows fluoridating the water supply is safe.
“There are 60 years of experience with community water fluoride,” said Jean Durch, the director of the Chippewa County Public Health Department. She said it is safe when guidelines are followed.
“It’s about moderation, just like always, and it’s about control.”
She said a fluoride rinse program offered in the Chippewa Falls School District is once a week, and is not available during the school year.
City Public Works Director Rick Rubenzer said the 2004 city study of the issue estimated it would cost $209,000 to alter a city building to accommodate the fluoride that would be added to the city water supply. The same study estimated it would cost the city $8,800 to buy the chemical additive.
“I am concerned about the additional costs to the water utility payer,” Rubenzer said.
Cornell added fluoride to its water supply in 1966 and Stanley did the same in 1982. Water going to the Northern Wisconsin Center for the Developmentally Disabled in Chippewa Falls also has fluoride.
The Chippewa County villages and cities of Boyd, Cadott, Lake Hallie, New Auburn and Bloomer do not add fluoride.
Correction: A previous version of this story confused the Chippewa Falls Dental Clinic with the Marshfield Clinic's Dental Center. There is a four-month waiting list at the Marshfield Clinic, Chippewa Dental Center.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

A must see.

ITV programme


Moreland Sanders investigates why British officials are lagging behind both Europe and the United States in either banning or issuing warnings against mercury amalgam fillings.

Mon 16 Feb 2009

Duration: 30 min Expires in 28 days

Well worth viewing to see Barry Cockroft Chief Dental Officer and Peter Ward of the BDA squirm.

Codex & Fluoride - Max Igan AVR 02/11/09 - 3/5

USA - Chippewa council votes down fluoride

Chippewa council votes down fluoride
By Chris Vetter Chippewa Falls News Bureau CHIPPEWA FALLS - A plan to add fluoride to the municipal drinking water in Chippewa Falls was shot down again Tuesday night.
The council voted 5-2 to take no action on a recommendation to add the chemical to the water supply, killing the measure. Several council members said the cost for adding fluoride - $209,000 in upfront installation and $36,000 a year, according to a five-year-old study - was just too much with the city and state facing budget restraints.
Council members Susan Zukowski, Brian Flynn, Jack Covill, Greg Dachel and Jason Anderson voted to take no action, with council members Dennis Doughty and Bob Hoekstra dissenting.
In 2004 the council also rejected adding fluoride on a 6-1 vote. Dentist Kent Vandehaar worked on the recommendation that went before the council in 2004, and he told the council Tuesday that fluoride is safe to consume and beneficial for teeth.
"The number of kids I've treated over 28 years, it's astounding the amount of dental decay in this town," Vandehaar said.
The 2004 study also found no evidence that fluoride harms the body in any way, he said.
Vandehaar said he wasn't surprised by the vote, noting a citywide referendum in 2004 showed that 70 percent of residents voted against fluoridation.
"What's ironic is there is chlorine in the (drinking) water, and that's because of public health," Vandehaar said.
Jean Durch, Chippewa County public health director, urged the council to look at the benefits.
"If you are from Eau Claire, you're teeth are better off than if you are from Chippewa Falls - that's what I hear anecdotally," Durch told the council.
Durch said fluoridation is widely considered to be among the 10 best public health advances of the 20th century, and she noted that 89.7 percent of Wisconsin residents are served by community water systems with fluoride, including Eau Claire, Stanley and Cornell.
City resident Karen Polzin spoke against the measure. She was pleased the council rejected fluoridation.
"I can't even see why it would be brought up," Polzin said after the meeting. "I don't feel the city should be medicating its residents."
Polzin said she's glad the council didn't waste any taxpayer money to further study the issue.
"There seems to be more and more information out there against fluoridation for health reasons," Polzin said.
Vetter can be reached at 723-0303 or chris.vetter@ecpc.com.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Codex & Fluoride - Max Igan AVR 02/11/09 - 2/5

USA - Rise cited in tooth decay among kids

Rise cited in tooth decay among kids
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE • February 16, 2009
Tooth decay in baby teeth is a real and fast-growing problem in the United States, posing serious health risks that can reach throughout a child's body.
The reason: A child's overall health is closely linked to his or her oral health.
"We've known intuitively that if you're healthy, your mouth is healthy too," says Dr.Mary Hayes, a pediatric dentist in Chicago and spokeswoman for the American Dental Association. "Now we have research that proves that point."
Decay in baby teeth among 2- to 5-year-olds increased from 24 percent to 28 percent from 1988 to 2004, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One in every five 3-year-olds now suffers from tooth decay.
A child with bad teeth, even if they're baby teeth, is more apt to suffer infections and inflammation, says Dr. Joel Berg, chairman of the Department of Pediatric Dentistry at the University of Washington and dental director at Seattle Children's Hospital.

"Not a week goes by that we don't see children admitted with facial swelling and other infections that started with cavities in baby teeth," says Berg, who's also a spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. "Children are coming to the emergency room with pain and swelling, and it is preventable."

Kids Eat Too Much Fluoride From Foods

Kids Eat Too Much Fluoride From Foods, Studies Show
Health & Medicine
Press release from: New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc
(openPR) - Kids ingest excessive fluoride, studies show, not just from toothpaste, but from their foods, making water fluoridation unnecessary and unsafe.

University of Indiana researchers analyzed foods typical three- to five-year-olds eat and found diet significantly contributes to children's daily fluoride intake. This and many other studies show, children risk dental fluorosis from their food, alone(3a-L).

"...because the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis (white spotted, yellow or brown permanently stained teeth) appear to be increasing, there is a need to quantitate all potential sources of fluoride exposure," report Jackson, et al, in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology (1).

Jackson found fluoride in McDonald's french fries, Aunt Millie's Homestyle Buttermilk White Bread, Iron Kids Bread, Lay's Baked and Ruffles potato chips, Heinz and Hunt's Ketchup, twelve different soda brands, fruits, vegetables, grains, meat, dairy products, nuts, seeds, fats, oils, sugars and sweets.

Fluoride ingestion overdose or dental fluorosis (permanently discolored teeth) is a huge American problem with up to 48% of school children sporting dental fluorosis, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Dental fluorosis is very expensive to cover up and is rarely covered by insurance.

Between the ages of 15 and 36-months, children's front teeth are most fluorosis-prone. To avoid tooth yellowing the National Academy of Sciences (2a) advises fluoride intake from all sources (food, air, water, toothpaste, medicines, and supplements) for the following age groups:

· infants up to 6 months old - less than 0.01 mg (one hundredth of a milligram)
· babies from 6 - 12 months - less than 0.5 mg (half a milligram)
· children from 1 to 3 years old - 0.7 mg (seven tenths of a milligram)
· children from 4 to 8 years old - less than 1 mg

Children's toothbrushing introduces 0.8 mg fluoride into their mouths, averaging 0.6 mg swallowed or absorbed from two brushings.(2b) One quart of fluoridated water contains approximately one milligram fluoride.

Despite the scientific evidence that America's children are fluoride over-dosed, dentists via well-organized political oral health coalitions convince too-trusting or maybe PAC-hungry legislators to promote fluoridation and dose children with even more fluoride, wasting precious tax dollars and endangering children's health and teeth.

Many ill health effects are also associated with fluoride ingestion See: www.FluorideAction.Net/health

And there is no dispute that too much fluoride actually causes teeth to decay. (7)

"The American Association of Pediatric Dentists' recent deal with Coca Cola(8) further illustrates dentistry's unfamiliarity with or disregard for the medical literature," says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.

U.S. children are over-fluoridated(4); while soda still erodes their teeth(5). Fluoride can't prevent soda-eroded teeth(6).

"To prevent cavities, we should improve child nutrition, remove soda machines from schools and reduce fluoride exposure by stopping water fluoridation," says Beeber.

Modern science shows that fluoride ingestion does not reduce tooth decay. Fluoride absorbs into the tooth by topical means alone. However, studies show that dentists are not familiar with this new fluoride science. See: tinyurl.com/Yoder

USA - Fluoride issue resurfacing in Chippewa Falls

By ROD STETZER
rod.stetzer@lee.net
Monday, February 16, 2009 2:06 PM CST
There’s a set of numbers to consider before the Chippewa Falls City Council hears a plea Tuesday night to add fluoride to the city’s water supply.
And those numbers are 70 to 30.That’s the percentage that an April 2004 advisory referendum on fluoride was crushed by city voters. The referendum vote was quickly followed by a 6-1 council vote against fluoridating what some in the city tout as the world’s purest water, capping a three-month bitter debate.

Now the fluoride topic is resurfacing at Tuesday’s council’s meeting at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall, 30 W. Central St...............

Comment
sparrowdancer
wrote on Feb 16, 2009 3:14 PM:

If "Community water fluoridation is an effective, safe and inexpensive way to prevent tooth decay," when can we expect to start seeing results in Kentucky? For years they have been almost 100% fluoridated, and yet they continue to have the highest rate of tooth decay and complete toothlessness in the entire nation. "

USA - Train hygienists to provide a wider array of services

Hospital emergency rooms are seeing thousands of repeat patients with unresolved dental problems. According to 2006 data, there are well over 20,000 visits to Minnesota emergency rooms for the purpose of addressing dental health problems. The cost to Minnesota taxpayers and Minnesota Hospitals is unacceptable.


Fluoridation in Minnesota is state-mandated:NYSCOF

Monday, February 16, 2009

Codex & Fluoride - Max Igan AVR 02/11/09 - 1/5

UK - Show us evidence that fluoride is safe

THREE weeks ago, I wrote to ask if Kate Taylor-Weetman would tell us what safety research there has been on extra strength fluoride toothpaste.
We wanted to know who did the research, who sponsored it and whether or not it had been properly peer reviewed. Readers will note that there has been no response, nor was there one to any of my questions in previous letters.
We can therefore now assume that there is no evidence worth producing.
Until the PCT introduced this novel approach, reduced amounts of fluoride in toothpaste have been advised for children. Even so, the packet warns that children must be supervised at all times when brushing, that the child must never be allowed to swallow any and that in case of accidental exposure, medical help must be sought immediately.
Surprisingly, the British Fluoridation Society's website is equally cautious, making it clear that an appropriately lower formula should be used to avoid damage to teeth. In America all fluoride toothpaste has to carry a poison warning, yet our PCT cannot explain why it thinks that higher strength fluoride is suitable for North Staffordshire babies.
Evidence of harm from fluoride, referred to by me in other letters, including the risk of damage to a baby's brain, thyroid problems, the higher incidence of Down's Syndrome births, the risks to the elderly and those with impaired kidney function have all come from reputable peer reviewed research, which means that it is considered valid and authoritative.
Further information may be found on the websites Fluoride Action Alert and UK Against Fluoride, both of which feature Dr Howard's research on childhood brain damage from fluoride. Parents should not readily accept assurances that this extra strength toothpaste is perfectly safe. There are statistics on the harmful effects of fluoride, but if your child is one who later suffers damage, it is no longer a statistic, but a personal tragedy.
Unfortunately, the pro-fluoride lobby, for whatever reason, seems more than happy to substitute propaganda and misrepresentation for proper evidence-based research.
KATE BOULTON
Biddulph

UK - New row over adding of flouride to drinking water

New row over adding of flouride to drinking water
By Stephen Adams
Last Updated: 7:40PM GMT 15 Feb 2009
A fresh debate will begin this month over the benefits of putting fluoride in drinking water if a health authority goes ahead with its plan to add the chemical to the supplies of almost 200,000 people.
While many health experts argue that adding fluoride will help improve children's teeth, critics believe it is a coercive form of 'mass medication' Most residents of Southampton will have no choice but to receive fluoridated tap water if the South Central Strategic Health Authority agrees to the proposal. Its board is to make a decision on Thursday February 26 following a consultation.
While many health experts argue that adding fluoride will help improve children's teeth, critics believe it is a coercive form of "mass medication" with unproven benefits.
If fluoride is added it will increase the concentration of the chemical in Southampton's water twelvefold, from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to one ppm.
Southampton Primary Care Trust believes this would "significantly improve the dental health of local people, particularly children", in a city that has some of the worst dental health in the country.
Fluoride is added to most brands of toothpaste but those with poor dental habits consequently fail to benefit from it. Fluoride works principally by making teeth more resistant to decay: in fluoridated areas 15 per cent more children have "decay-free" teeth.
Barry Cockcroft, the chief dental officer for England, said it was "the perfect public health measure because people with the greatest need benefit most and most people benefit to some degree".
But Stephen Peckham, a member of the pressure group Hampshire Against Fluoride, said there was "good evidence" to show it led to increased levels of fluoride-related tooth staining and other health problems die to "overexposure to fluoride".
He added: "There has been no discussion of the complex ethical issues that water fluoridation entails."
Should the proposal be successful it would be likely to increase pressure on other areas to follow suit.
Some six million of England's 45 million residents receive fluoridated tap water – 5.5 million have it added to their supplies while 500,000 live in areas in which it occurs naturally.
Since 2003 health authorities have been able to order water companies to add it, rather than just ask.

NZ - Water a lot of sugar

.....Dentist Joanne Tucker of Auckland's Dental Care West said she sees many children and adults needing teeth removed thanks to sugar damage, and soft drinks were the main culprit.

"Anything with sugar in it - even a water like this - will damage your teeth."

The centre says Coke is marketing Vitaminwater as a "healthful alternative to soda by labelling its several flavours with health buzzwords. The sugars in each bottle do more to promote obesity, diabetes and other health problems than the vitamins in the drink do to perform the advertised benefits listed on the bottles."..........

New Zealand is fluoridated. 61% of NZ is fluoridated:NYSCOF

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Fluoride in Water: Study Says Don't!

FAN gives support to stop fluoridation in Southampton

FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
FAN
FAN Bulletin 1047: Professionals ask SHA board members to reject fluoridation. Part 4
Feb 14, 2009
We print out four more statements of concern which have been sent to the Southampton (UK) Strategic Health Authority (SHA). They come from a professor from Scotland; a radio host; a former Federal Health Minister from Australia; a grass roots organizer and a university professor from Massachusetts. I think you will agree that based on what you are reading from these people, who have all signed the Professionals' Statement, that they are highly qualified and/or experienced people, who have thought deeply about this issue. There is much ammunition in their statements - both individually and collectively - to help all of us fight this battle. Meanwhile, the national significance of the decision in Southampton is discussed in the Feb 15 issue of The Observer, New fight to stop mass fluoridation.

While the number of signers continues to rise on the Professionals' Statement (we are now up to 2,143) we still need many more. I have prepared an appeal for professionals in Europe to sign on. Do you have any colleagues or friends in Europe who might be willing to add their moral support and sign this statement? If you do we will gladly forward a copy of this appeal to you so that you can send it to them. Please email us at info@fluoridealert.org and we will send you a copy of this appeal.

Paul Connett
__________________________________________________________________

A statement from Professor Henry Micklem from Scotland

Dr Geoffrey Harris, Chairman, NHS South Central

Dear Dr Harris,

I am emeritus professor of immunobiology at the University of Edinburgh and have been studying the literature on the effects of fluoride on health for several years, with particular reference to the pros and cons of water fluoridation. Living in Scotland, I did not contribute to the formal consultation. However, the decision in Southampton, whichever way it goes, has more than local significance and I hope you will allow me to put an oar in at this late stage..............

H S Micklem D Phil (Oxon)
Emeritus Professor of Imunobiology
University of Edinburgh

A statement from former Australian Federal health minister Dr. Douglas Everingham
Dear decision-makers,

I'm advised by Professor Paul Connett that you are soon to decide whether to support the official policy of increasing fluoride content of public water supplies in the Southampton region.
I ask you to resist this increasingly discredited policy. Here's why. ..........

Douglas N. Everingham MB, BS
5 Eriboll Close
MIDDLE PARK QLD 4074
Australia

A statement from Ralph Ryder, editor of Toxcat, and director of Communities Against Toxics, UK

Dear Members of the Southampton Strategic Health Authority (SHA)

Have you ever met someone whose lack of dental hygiene has made you feel sick?..........
Ralph Anthony Ryder
Director, Communities Against Toxics
PO Box 29, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, CH66 1NU

A statement from Michael Dolan, PhD, University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Dear Mr. Howell et al.,

Hope you are well. It is my understanding that the Southampton Health Authority is contemplating a program of water fluoridation for the city of Southampton. I am writing to let you know that this practice has come under considerable criticism in the USA in light of recent findings that fluoride is a neurotoxin and increases the risk of bone cancer in young boys...........

Michael F. Dolan, Ph.D.
Research Professor
University of Massachusetts, Amherst USA

Uk - New fight to stop mass fluoridation

New fight to stop mass fluoridation
Government drive to add the chemical to water supplies hinges on Hampshire test case
James Meikle The Observer, Sunday 15 February 2009 Article history
Opponents of the mass fluoridation of water will next week try to stop a government drive to add the chemical to supplies used by millions of people in England and Wales.
The verdict on a small scheme covering 200,000 people in Southampton and southwest Hampshire will help shape public attitudes to far bigger proposals countrywide, and the South Central Strategic Health Authority's decision could potentially make ministers rethink plans to implement fluoridation. Authorities in northwest England are among those next in line to bring forward proposals.
Attempts to increase fluoridation stalled for more than a generation after local councils lost control over public health in 1974 and water supplies were privatised, but a law change at the end of 2003 allowed health authorities to order, rather than ask, water companies to add fluoride. So far about 5.5 million people, a ninth of the population in England, live in areas with added fluoride and another 500,000 with equivalent levels where the chemical occurs naturally. The Scottish government decided against letting local authorities decide on adding the chemical more than four years ago. The Isle of Man dropped the idea last summer.
Supporters say added fluoride cuts tooth decay and reduces health inequalities between rich and poor areas, with the benefit spreading to adults as well as children. They say it could save infants with poor first teeth facing traumatic operations to remove them at a cost to the NHS of £500 a time. Fluoridation has long been used in the US and England's West Midlands and has shown no evidence of being harmful. Opponents object to what they see as mass medication, pointing to potential risks including lower IQ in children, bone cancer and hip fractures in the old. Adding fluoride to toothpaste has raised levels in people's bodies, they say, and evidence for water treatment cutting decay is not clear-cut.
Southampton primary care trust has prompted the latest argument over fluoride, forcing a consultation. Hampshire county council opposes the idea. Southampton city council supports it.
Barry Cockcroft, chief dental officer for England, said fluoridation "is the perfect public health measure because people with the greatest need benefit most and most people benefit to some degree". Defeat in Southampton "would be disappointing", but would not stop other authorities investigating the idea.
Mike Lennon, chairman of the British Fluoridation Society and professor of public health at Sheffield University, was less sure. A number were "sitting back and waiting to see what happens in [Hampshire]. If it is successful, I suspect they will go ahead. If it is not successful, then I suspect Barry Cockcroft and others will have to go back to the drawing board."
Fluoridation was a "mass measure", not mass medication, Lennon insisted. "In Hartlepool, where there is fluoride naturally present, you don't call it a medicated water supply," he said. Breakfast cereals had added vitamins, he went on. "You call them supplemented or fortified."
Stephen Peckham, reader in health policy at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and a member of Hampshire Against Fluoride, said: "There is good evidence to demonstrate that, at a minimum, water fluoridation will lead to increased levels of dental fluorosis [staining] of a moderate or severe nature. In addition, evidence suggests that further health problems are likely to occur due to overexposure to fluoride ... There has been no discussion of the complex ethical issues that water fluoridation entails."
The National Pure Water Association said that fluoridation was "an outdated concept".
The case for flouride
• On average children aged 5-14 who drink fluoridated water have 2.2 fewer teeth affected by decay than children in non-fluoridated areas
• In fluoridated areas there are 15% more children who are "decay-free"
• Evidence suggests it benefits adults too
• Severe tooth decay can lead to a loss of confidence and social isolation
• It is a public good - the greatest benefit is to those least able to help themselves
... and against
• The beneficial effects are unproven, as most supporting evidence is of insufficient quality
• Potential harm to public health
• Increase of fluorosis (staining) of teeth
• Restricts individual choice and removes right of consent to "medical" treatment
• Less "coercive" interventions, such as teeth-brushing programmes and applying fluoride to the surface of teeth, are better

Saturday, February 14, 2009

USA - New Jersey - Oppose fluoride bill

Oppose fluoride bill
A bill (A3706) released by committee this month forces water fluoridation throughout New Jersey ("Fluoride measure advances," Feb. 10).

Fluoride is a toxic waste, a manufacturing byproduct, and is used in rat poison. Fluoride is very caustic and damages water systems. After decades of experimentation, 98 percent of Europe is now fluoridation-free, as is Japan.

Fluoride is more toxic than lead, only slightly less toxic than arsenic, and is chemically the most active seeker of electrons that it "steals" from its neighboring molecules. An NRC study concluded that chronic health effects of fluoridation concluded a likely increase for bone fractures.

Fluoride is most effective when given topically and is available in almost all toothpaste. Yet children are often prescribed poly-vi-fluor vitamins. My own children suffered fluorosis (mottling of teeth) from them. Currently every community in New Jersey can choose to fluoridate or not. When given the choice two-thirds of Americans choose against fluoridation. The Assembly really needs to do some research before forcing this poison on the people of New Jersey.
-- David Yennior, Belleville

Canada - Fluoridation a safe and proven strategy

Re: “Kids need to brush up on oral health: report,” The Mirror, Feb. 10.
The cost of adding fluoride to regional drinking water is minimal when compared to the large costs of reparative dental surgery these children and their families will face down the road.
Dental decay is the most frequent condition suffered by children other than the common cold, and is one of the leading causes of absences from school.
Water fluoridation is a safe, cost-effective strategy that will provide protective measures to Ontarians, especially children, regardless of their economic position.
According to a Health Canada report released in 2007, water fluoridation in the correct amount is both safe and effective. Furthermore, Health Canada’s website states they “support water fluoridation as a public health measure to prevent dental decay,” and that “the big advantage of water fluoridation is that it benefits all residents in a community, regardless of age, socioeconomic status, education or employment.”
These are the facts. Anything else is fear mongering.
Please take the time to get to know the facts about this important issue; they will make a tremendous difference to you and your family.

Dr. Larry Levin
President
Ontario Dental Association

Look into my eyes and believe everything I say.

Di Buckland asks Australians to wake-up and reject Fluoride

FAN newsletter

FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
http://www.FluorideAlert.org
FAN Bulletin 1046: Professionals ask SHA board members to reject fluoridation. Part 3Feb 13, 2009
First, apologies for leaving out the email address (iron@berkeley.edu) of Juanita Neilands in our last bulletin. Juanita is the widow of the late professor Joe Neilands, one of the signers of the Professionals Statement calling for an end to fluoridation, who passed away recently.
Below we have printed out two more important statements sent into the SHA panel who are considering the possible fluoridation of Southampton and some surrounding communities in the UK, as well as two short statements on mercury amalgam developments. All statements pose issues about potential liabilities for the dental lobby.
John Spottiswode reminds the panel that the World Health Organization advises communities considering fluoridation that they should first check to see what the community's current exposure to fluoride is from other sources. While promoters often cite the WHO's support for this practice they never acknowledge this important caveat. With so many children now impacted with dental fluorosis such an omission is utterly irresponsible. Children could either have their urine tested for fluoride or examined for the signs of dental fluorosis. The early promoters of fluoridation believed that at optimal levels of fluoride (1 ppm) approximately 10% of children would develop dental fluorosis in its mildest form. Running this logic backwards: if one found that over 10% of children had dental fluorosis in a community (before fluoridation) then we can assume that they are getting the optimal fluoride exposure and they don't need any more. Today over 10% of children living in communities with fluoride levels less than 0.3 ppm have dental fluorosis and over 20% living in communities with fluoride levels between 0.3 and 0.7 ppm have dental fluorosis (Heller et al., 1997). This is all very rational of course, but it makes the generous assumption that those who promote fluoridation care about science.

What they really care about are their liabilities. Is it fear of liabilities more than anything else which led the ADA to recommend to their membership that parents be advised not to use fluoridated tap water to make up infant formula? If they cared about our kids they would have warned the parents themselves as well as the media and the WIC clinics. And is it fear of liabilities which has forced Colgate to remove fluoride supplements ("Luride") from pharmacy shelves? Colgate has very quietly removed all reference to "Luride" from its web page. Has any one told the many pediatricians throughout the world who still prescribe fluoride tablets to babies? See this February 6th announcement Several Sodium Fluoride Chewable Tablets Discontinued.

Dan Stockin from The Lillie Center also warns the SHA about the liabilities incurred by those who promote fluoridation without warning kidney patients and diabetics that they may have extra risks from consuming fluoridated water. He writes: "

"Here's the bottom line: as a public health professional I can tell you that doctors, dentists, and government agencies no longer have credibility in their statements that fluoridated water is safe. Based on my conversations with attorneys, I believe for liability reasons you do not want to be in the position where kidney patients and diabetics can prove you were provided this and other information, yet you decided to fluoridate anyway."

While we are on liabilities we should not forget that other issue over which the ADA has built up huge liabilities: their continued support for the use of mercury amalgams to fill teeth. For over 170 years they and their predecessors have claimed that these were "safe and effective" and that there was no scientific evidence of harm. Now whole countries have banned these amalgams and the writing is on the wall for the US. The similarities between the ADA's promotion and rhetoric on mercury amalgam "safety" and fluoride "safety" are remarkably similar. In my view when one falls the other will soon follow. So we should heartily celebrate the progress being made by the dentists who have been fighting mercury amalgams and penalized for doing so, like Dr. Hal Huggins (see email below), and the lawyers who are fighting on their behalf like Charlie Brown (see email below).

If you live in the UK make sure you get to watch the ITV program "Tonight" on Monday Feb 16, 8-8:30 pm, which will be featuring an expose on mercury amalgams in a special entitled What's in your mouth?

Paul Connett

___________________________________________________________

Statement from John Spottiswoode, Hampshire Against Fluoridation

Dear Members of the SCSHA,

One important aspect of the public consultation on fluoridation in the SCSHA area has not received the attention it deserves and that is 'How much fluoride are residents of Hampshire consuming today, even without fluoridation?' The SHA has failed to answer this question yet the NHS's systematic review, the York Review, identified this as an important consideration in 2000.

Other authorities have also attested to the importance of this aspect, as far back as 1971, the World Health Organisation (WHO International Drinking Water Standards) warned: "In the assessment of the safety of a water supply with regard to the fluoride concentration, the total daily intake by the individual must be considered."

In 1994 a WHO Expert committee again said: "Dental and public health administrators should be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any additional fluoride programme."

And in its Guidelines for drinking water quality, 3rd Ed (2006) the WHO stated that "It was also emphasised that in setting national standards for fluoride, it is particularly important to consider ... volume of water intake and intake of fluoride from other sources." ( S.12.63 page 377)

No information on fluoride intake by residents of Hampshire was provided to the public during the public consultation in the South Central Strategic Health Authority area, contrary to WHO warnings. In view of this very serious omission it would seem essential for the SCSHA - even at this late stage in the process - to consider carefully the only data on fluoride intake that is available, viz the data available from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey of 2003.

This has been analysed by Dr Peter Mansfield who found that 20.2% of the adult population between 19 and 64 yrs old across all of England, Wales and Scotland is already exposed to above safe intakes of fluoride. Dr Mansfield has further found that in those areas with fluoridated drinking water, the proportion above the safe intake rises to 65% of adults. Safe intake has been set by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food (COMA) as 0.05mg F /kg body weight/ per day. Above this safe level the fluoride accumulates in the body and the bones to such an extent that by the time of retirement people can expect serious adverse health effects, even if they have avoided them successfully until that age. Dr Peter Mansfield presented this personally to us on the 31st January and since then he has also presented this at the Department of Health to the Chief Dental Officer, Dr Barry Cockcroft.

We are alerting you to this important information to avoid any misunderstanding arising from a possible future claim that people were not made aware of this most relevant omission from the consultation.

SCSHA members should also bear in mind that the government agency responsible for commissioning the National Diet and Nutrition Survey, the Food Standards Agency, has been kept fully informed of this new information and has not refuted the figures supplied by Dr Mansfield. The reference for the information published in the BMJ 'Fluoride Consumption -- Much Higher than We Are Told' is on http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7622/699#177639

It would seem prudent for the SCSHA to investigate immediately why those promoting fluoridation in Hampshire have not investigated this crucially important matter. The onus is now on those proposing fluoridation in Hampshire to provide evidence that people in Hampshire are not already consuming too much fluoride. Since no evidence whatsoever has been offered that the diet of people in Hampshire differs from that in the rest of the UK, the SCSHA must reject the proposal for a twelvefold increase of fluoride in Hampshire's drinking water.

Yours sincerely,

John Spottiswoode
Hampshire Against Fluoridation

Statement from Dan Stockin, Senior Operations Officer, The Lillie Center Inc.
To SHA panel members,
My name is Daniel Stockin. I am a 20-year-career public health professional with a strong background in toxics assessment and hazardous materials management. I'm writing to advise you of two developments you should be aware of concerning water fluoridation. Our public health training firm, The Lillie Center Inc., formally submitted an ethics complaint to the joint ethics committees of the Centers for Disease Control concerning unethical actions by CDC managers in promoting water fluoridation. Disturbingly, CDC has refused to answer in writing key questions in the complaint. One result of the complaint was an attorney firm seeing the document and then becoming interested in harm to citizens from fluoridated water. The firm's subsequent actions helped force the National Kidney Foundation to change its stance on fluoridated water, and the Kidney Foundation's name has now been removed from the American Dental Association's list of water fluoridation supporters. The ethics complaint may be viewed online. Contact me if you would like to see a copy of CDC's response.

Secondly, you should be aware that diabetics and kidney patients (and attorneys) are waking up to the issue of legal liability for public and private sector organizations that promote use of fluorides. The liability cases will include legal actions for failure to warn kidney patients and diabetics that they have been designated in 2006 by the National Research Council as "susceptible subpopulations" that are especially vulnerable to harm from ingested fluorides.

Here's the bottom line: as a public health professional I can tell you that doctors, dentists, and government agencies no longer have credibility in their statements that fluoridated water is safe. Based on my conversations with attorneys, I believe for liability reasons you do not want to be in the position where kidney patients and diabetics can prove you were provided this and other information, yet you decided to fluoridate anyway. For public health professionals like myself, this whole issue has shattered my belief in the integrity of our health system. Don't be swayed by proponents of fluoridation; the science shows fluorides are actually harmful, and no one can control the dose of fluorides susceptible people ingest if you put it in the water.

Daniel G. Stockin, MPH
Senior Operations Officer
The Lillie Center Inc.
P.O. Box 839 Ellijay GA 30540
United States
Email: dan@thelilliecenter.com

This message from Dr. Hal Huggins (info@hugginsappliedhealing.com)

With the recent admissions by the FDA that mercury fillings should not be placed in pregnant or lactating women, nor in children whose brain is still developing, I feel exonerated. I lost my license for telling people mercury did this and more. Now trial lawyers can come to the front and see to it that dentists - after being sued - should stop poisoning people. I vote to make lawyers part of the health profession.

And this message from lawyer Charlie Brown, National Counsel, Consumers for Dental Choice, charlie@toxicteeth.org

12 February 2009

We are landing good punches in both the publishing and broadcast media. Two state trial lawyer associations, the ones in Colorado and Idaho, published my article, Mercury Dental Fillings as an Emerging Toxic Tort. My article sketches out for trial lawyers a cause of action against the major amalgam manufacturers, including Danaher (Kerr) and Dentsply. As you may recall, we simultaneously are mounting a shareholder challenge against these economic colossuses.

ITV, a major TV network in Great Britain, is doing an exposé on mercury amalgam on Feb. 16 -- the topic is What's in your mouth? It's on ITV's award-winning "Tonight" program -- analogous to Sixty Minutes in the US. The story is done by the well-known (in the U.K.) investigative reporter Morland Sanders. I was interviewed at length for the story, as was mercury-free U.K. dentist John Roberts.

As the date approaches for FDA to classify mercury amalgam (no later than July 28), we continue to build the momentum in the press that amalgam is on its way out.

Charlie