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

UK Against Fluoridation

Friday, July 31, 2009

UK - Fluoride-dosing equipment failure criticized

Fluoride-dosing equipment failure criticized
Thursday, July 30, 2009
LONDON — The United Kingdom’s Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) has criticized utility giant Severn Trent Water for a June 2008 fluoride-dosing equipment failure that sent as much as twice the target level of fluoride into the drinking water of 29,000 homes, BBC News reported July 30.
Severn Trent Water has apologized for the June 2008 incident at its Dimmingsdale Borehole Pumping station, but said the water had still been safe to drink.
The DWI said work to complete a new fluoride dosing pump and dose controller was completed at the Dimmingsdale station near Wolverhampton on June12, 2008. The station delivers water to homes in Wolverhampton and Bridgnorth in Shropshire County.
According to the BBC News, the DWI said a routine sample on July 1, 2008, found treated water at the works containing 2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of fluoride — twice the target level. A second test two days later showed 1.86 mg/L.
The DWI report “was critical of Severn Trent Water,” BBC News reported, noting the DWI said the company did not detect the problem for a month, and then tested the supply going to the wrong homes.

UK - Water tests found excess fluoride BBC Film

Excess fluoride was put into a water supply by Severn Trent Water affecting customers in the Black Country, a report has found.

UK - Lymington Times

Legal action holds up fluoride consultation 'bias' investigation
LEGAL action has put on hold a complaint of bias against NHS chiefs who agreed fluoride plans that will affect the drinking water of 8,000 people in Totton.
New Forest East MP Julian Lewis and county councillor David Harrison both went to the health ombudsman alleging the consultation was one-sided and ignored residents' opposition.
But a Southampton resident's bid for a judicial review into adding the controversial chemical to water to Southampton and surrounding areas by 2010 — which could affect about 100,000 people in total — has
stopped an investigation for now.
The ombudsman's office wrote to Dr Lewis that it would be "inappropriate for the ombudsman to undertake an investigation until after the conclusion of any court proceedings".
Dr Lewis said: "Of the two methods of tackling this problem, the Judicial review is undoubtedly more important. It would be valuable if the ombudsman eventually condemns the flawed and biased consultation staged by the SHA.
"However, the intervention of the court, if successful, would be a far bigger setback for the pro-fluoride
fanatics." A decision on whether the court case will go ahead is expected in August.
Coun. Harrison added: "It must be increasingly obvious to the SHA that it cannot proceed without public consent. Even if the legal challenge fails, it will still have to overcome a ruling by the ombudsman."
Southampton Primary Care Trust's scheme was approved In February by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA), despite a Mori poll showing 38% opposed against 32% in support.
A 15,000-name petition was delivered to Downing Street calling on
the decision to be reversed and among people who responded to the consultation, 72% were against.
The bid by Geraldine Milner for a judicial review said fluoridation should not have been approved because public opinion was against it, opponents' arguments were not properly considered, and scientific evidence was misrepresented.
The SHA argued fluoridation was key to reducing above average child tooth decay in Southampton and said there was no evidence of any harm caused beyond occasional mottling of teeth, known as fluorosls.

UK - Daily Echo Letters

Silence of Mr Denham
WE all await, with very keen anticipation, what local MP John Denham proposes to actually do with regard to the fluoride in tap water issue.
Perhaps he will announce something in the Daily Echo!
His boss, Gordon Brown, has said that local people should decide the issue. The formal consultation resulted in 72 per cent of those expressing an opinion as against. John Denham has said that the plans should be put on hold. He seems to understand that there has been a great democratic wrong, empowering a non-elected and unaccountable Strategic Health Authority to decide the issue.
Indeed, just this week he has announced plans designed to make this and other quangos face greater levels of scrutiny by elected councillors.
Mr Denham knows the clock is ticking. We move ever nearer the proposed implementation in 2010. He needs to step in and stop the proposals from going ahead. He has the authority. The public are expecting him to take action, not just voice an opinion as if he is simply an interested commentator.
We look forward to hearing from you very soon, Mr Denham,
CLLR DAVID HARRISON, Leader, New Forest District Liberal Democrats.

Don't poison my water please
I REALLY do NOT want my tap water to be contaminated by a poison. It is outrageous that this toxic chemical (fluoride) is to be forced on us. Do we live in a democracy? I think not.
So what sort of a system is it? Communism? Dictatorship? Think about it.
A Bassett Resident, who cleans her teeth!

Thursday, July 30, 2009

UK - Barry Cockroft, CDO visits Halton to see war on tooth decay

Barry Cockroft, Department of Health chief dental officer, visits Halton to see war on tooth decay
Jul 29 2009 by Adrian Short, Runcorn and Widnes Weekly News
A TOP dental expert has visited Halton to see what progress has been made in the fight against rotten teeth.
Barry Cockroft, Department of Health chief dental officer, observed how cash was being spent in Halton, which has poor dental health compared with other areas.
The average Halton five-year-old has two decaying teeth compared to the English average of 1.47.
An NHS Halton and St Helens spokesman said that an “ambitious programme targeting schoolchildren” is ongoing in the borough.
During his trip Mr Cockroft was showed how “dental capacity” had been increased and a scheme to distribute 30,000 tubes of toothpaste and fluoride toothbrushes to be given to the borough’s children. He also saw how fluoride varnishing had been increased.

No mention of fluoridation!

USA - Q: Why does Grand Rapids need so many dentists?

Water Status: Never fluoridated
2008 Population: 550,396 (US Census Bureau Pop. Fact Finder)
Number of Dentists: 629 (AnyWho Yellow Pages, current listing)

Water Status: Fluoridated since 1945 (first in US and world)
2008 Population: 193,627 (US Census Bureau Pop. Fact Finder)
Number of Dentists: 924 (AnyWho Yellow Pages, current listing)

Q: Why does Grand Rapids need so many dentists?

Here too in fluoridated Birmingham there are far more dentists than comparable non fluoridated areas.

UK - Southampton - MPs must make a stand on fluoride

MPs must make a stand on fluoride
UNELECTED members of the Central Health Authority intend to go ahead with poisoning our water supply with their chemical fluoride. Even if a referendum should prove once and for all that the majority of Southampton citizens vote against it.
The Echo, which supports the public call for a referendum, quotes the statement by their manager, Keith McNamara, as sheer arrogance. I'm sure the citizens will agree with the Echo entirely. McNamara and the rest of this bunch of quan-goes should be kicked out of their unelected office, for showing complete disregard for the wishes of the majority There is no room in this country for dictators. A referendum has been called for and must now take place, the democracy of our country and the very fabric of our British way of life is now being challenged. I call on our two MPs, John Denham and Alan Whitehead, to stand up and be counted, to stop sitting on the fence and to support the wishes of their voters.
To ignore them would be sheer folly. I for one will not pay water rates with this chemical added. Wake up before it's too late.
A WILLOTT, Lordswood, Southampton.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Prof.Roger Masters on Alex Jones Tv:"Water Fluoridation"4/4

Australia - Parents warned over lunch treats

Karen Collier
July 27, 2009 12:00am
POPULAR snack bars designed for kids' lunch boxes have been labelled as bad as sweet biscuits and chocolate.
Junk food critics claim food companies are conning parents over treats loaded with sugar that risk rotting teeth.
A Parents Jury review of 21 snack bars has declared none suitable for everyday lunch boxes.
Versions of Kellogg's LCMs, Nature's Way Kids Smart bars and Nestle Milo bars were named the worst offenders in the study of marketing claims versus nutritional value.
Key school canteen organisations also came under fire for approving at least one shamed product.
Prominent nutritionist Dr Rosemary Stanton said snack bars were often "glorified confectionery" that should only be occasionally eaten when children had access to a toothbrush.
Many mothers had been fooled into thinking they had to prove their love by supplying treats daily instead of once or twice a week.
Dr Stanton said dental decay was on the rise among children, despite water fluoridation, because of constant snacking and sugary drinks......

UK - Sheffield - Council defends flouride in milk

Council defends flouride in milk
Date: 28 July 2009
By Staff Copy
COUNCIL officers and health chiefs have defended the introduction of fluoridated milk into 36 Sheffield primary schools.
The strategy has been criticised by some parents and anti-fluoride campaigners, concerned that the chemical is added into a basic children's foodstuff.
One mum told The Star: "I was shocked when I received a letter from the junior school my daughtADVERTISEMENTer will be attending in September.
"She has always had school milk and the letter asked if I wanted her to have milk with fluoride in or without? I could not believe schools are allowed to give a child chemicals to drink."
Fluoridated milk was introduced as an option for pupils as part of a campaign to prevent tooth decay which has also handed out free toothpaste packs and introduced teeth brushing sessions in before and after school clubs.
The scheme has been piloted and evaluated in suburbs such as Low Edges, Batemoor, Jordanthorpe, Tinsley, Darnall and Acres Hill.
Anti-fluoride campaigners argue such programmes contravene European law.
Council manager for children's services Leah Barratt said the fluoride scheme had been introduced after consultation with all schools in the city.
"Since then the majority of our primary schools have opted to take this on board, but let's make this very clear - parents make the final decision as to whether this is something they want their children to participate in.
"They have the option of letting their children have either fluoridated or non-fluoridated milk. Nobody is being pushed."
More than 1,200 city children have the option of drinking the fluoridated milk.
Kate Jones, director of Dental Public Health at NHS Sheffield said: "In Sheffield there are many children suffering from tooth decay and adding fluoride to milk is a way of helping to prevent this.
"Fluoride milk is a safe and effective method of improving dental health. It is ordinary milk that looks, smells and tastes the same as ordinary milk with a small amount of fluoride added."
Currently around 38,000 UK schoolchildren are drinking fluoridated milk.

USA - City Fluoride Task Force looking for research experts

City Fluoride Task Force looking for research experts
Mount Pleasant's Fluoride Task Force is looking for experts to provide information and recommendations in fluoride research.

The committee, created in January, has four members researching the effects of fluoridation in water supplies and aid the city's commission on decisions regarding water fluoridation....

Post Comment Go to Article Comments in Other Articles RSS Feed
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1
James W. Reeves
posted 7/28/09 @ 11:27 PM EST
The premier international expert on fluoridation is probably Dr. Paul Connett from New York state. He has a PhD degree in biochenistry, is a retired chemistry proessor and has studied the subject for over 15 years. You can see his web site at fluoridealert.org. Dr. Connett has presented evidence on fluoridation in most states and in 40 countries. I feel sure he would attend meetings if you invite him.
Because fluoride affect many organs of the body, I urge you not to let the dentistry profession overwhelm the meetings.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Prof.Roger Masters on Alex Jones Tv:"Water Fluoridation"3/4

Australia - Dentists give plan to fix nation’s teeth the brush-off

Dentists give plan to fix nation’s teeth the brush-off
Ari Sharp
July 28, 2009
THE proposed multibillion-dollar plan for a steep rise in the Medicare levy to provide every Australian with dental care has been given the thumbs down by a dentists’ group.

In its final report to the Federal Government, released yesterday, the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission called for a $3.6 billion-a-year Denticare Australia scheme that would offer universal access to preventive and restorative dental care and dentures.

The plan would be funded by an 0.75 percentage point increase in the Medicare levy, leading to an extra tax bill of $450 for those earning $60,000 a year and pushing the basic Medicare levy up to 2.25 per cent of income. The Denticare scheme was the only element of the health blueprint, whose recommendations total up to $9.3 billion a year, that had a specific funding proposal linked to it.

The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, yesterday refused to commit to the scheme, even though, unlike many of the other recommendations of the Commission, there are no concerns the scheme may fall foul of the constitution.

The proposal, which would provide some relief for the more than 650,000 people currently on dental public health waiting lists, would allow people to choose between private and public dental health plans, both of which will be funded by the scheme.

Speaking at the release of the commission’s report in Canberra yesterday, the Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, said that the state of teeth was a significant indicator of income differences in Australia. ‘‘Dental health is becoming an indicator of wealth or poverty,’’ she said.

It was a sentiment shared by Mr Rudd who said that his contact with people had left him distressed at the poor state of dental health..................

In 75% fluoridated Australia: NYSCOF

UK - Olga knows best - Evidence is in support of fluoridation

Evidence is in support of fluoridation
AS Daily Echo readers will be aware the SHA carried out a public consultation to assist the SHA board in making a decision on whether to instruct Southern Water to add fluoride to the water supply in Southampton and parts of south west Hampshire.
This consultation followed a formal request from Southampton City Primary Care Trust and was carried put in line with the relevant legislation.
Legislation which was debated in Parliament by MPs and passed in a free vote. The legislation makes no provision for a referendum.
During the consultation more than 10,000 responses were received plus 2,000 in-depth telephone interviews carried out. An independent detailed report on all views received was submitted to the SHA board to assist board members in their decision making process. These results have been widely reported.
The consultation highlights the challenge of discussing public health issues in the age of the Internet where people need to try and evaluate a huge range of complex scientific information available on water fluoridation, some of which is clearly inaccurate and has often been reproduced by local campaigners.
You only need to look at some of the postings by readers on the Daily Echo website which talk of conspiracy theories to see the difficulty of using the Internet as a reliable source of information on important scientific issues.
To be clear, the results of the telephone survey showed no majority view on this issue therefore it is simply not the case that the SHA is ignoring public opinion. What it did show was a quarter of those people who opposed water fluoridation did so because of a fear that it would damage their health, but successive research studies have found no association between water fluoridation and systemic illness. I The survey also found that 69 per cent of respondents had little or no knowledge of fluoridation.
The Nuffield Council of Bioethics published a report in November 2007 which said: "Stewardship is not exercised simply by following the public vote, especially where issues involve complex scientific evidence."
In weighing up the arguments for and against water fluoridation the board was satisfied that water fluoridation at 1 ppm is a safe and effective way to tackle tooth decay in Southampton, and that the health benefits outweighed all other arguments against water fluoridation. j
The SHA, having followed the law as it has been laid out by Parliament, arrived at this conclusion and remains confident that the decision taken remains in the best interest of the health of the local population and something which will benefit future generations in the area.
Fluoridation is supported by the British Dental Association, British Medical Association and World Health Organisation, organisations whose primary purpose is to help improve the health of people.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Prof.Roger Masters on Alex Jones Tv:"Water Fluoridation"2/4

He seems to be forgetting fluorosis - fluoride is a problem no matter where it came from.

UK - Fluoride overdose affecting 28,743 Brignorth and Wolverhampton

01 Jul 2008 For 4 weeks Dimmingsdale works Overdosing of fluoride in treated water leaving works affecting 28,743 Brignorth and Wolverhampton.

This is what the SCAHA said during the Southampton consultation.

6.4 What happens if the water company gets the fluoride dose incorrect?
When fluoride is added to the water supply, it is done so under carefully controlled conditions. Safety is a primary concern and the governments Code of Practice on Technical Aspects of Fluoridation of Water Supplies, 1987, sets out strict criteria for water fluoridation.

Water companies that run fluoridation schemes use sophisticated equipment to continuously monitor the level of fluoride in the water and there is an excellent safety record. Water suppliers already routinely add fluoride to the water using robust systems which are well monitored.

Although there is one major tank for fluoride chemical storage at the treatment works, a proportion is drawn off into a smaller tank for daily use and then carefully pumped into the mains water at the correct level. This reduces the chance of accidents and gives an additional safety mechanism.

UK - Referendum will finalise the issue of fluoride

Referendum will finalise the issue of fluoride
THE importance of the debate underway in Hampshire on whether to permit mass medication of the water supply to Southampton and surrounding areas is underscored today.
This paper reveals (page 7) that the debate is being watched closely by other authorities who have their own plans to introduce fluoride to water supplies.
These have been put on hold while the Southampton issue is taken through the courts and any subsequent actions.
This is not surprising. So heated has been the debate here in Hampshire over whether it is right to add the chemical to water supplies and how much of the population is behind the scheme that other authorities realise they will face similar battles if they do not approach the issue carefully in their own areas.
At present Hampshire awaits a decision on whether there is to be a judicial review of the process that determined Southampton should receive fluoride. The Strategic Health Authority is waiting with £400,000 of health service money to fight an action to overturn the plan. This is a waste of time and money.
A simple decision to hold a binding referendum will finalise this issue once and for all.
Why won't the SHA take such a decision and show the rest of the country the best course of action to follow before fluoride should be introduced anywhere.

Let's make fluoride an election issue
SO we now know that the South Central Area Health Authority will take no notice of a referendum on fluoridation of the water supply.
To all intents and purposes it seems to be running as a petty dictatorship.
It seems to have forgotten that it is there to serve the public not to rule it. It is an unelected body.
We now need a clear statement from the opposition par coming general election, one of the first actions of their government will be to abolish the SCAHA and sack all of its board members. So come on you Conservatives and Lib Dems etc. Let's have your pledge in print that your party will take immediate action against the SCAHA and its board if you come to power. CHRIS BARKER, Southampton.

Lax thinking...
MAY I be so bold as to suggest that a strong laxative be added to the water at the strategic health authority, as a small minority may be constipated.
It may also help them to think more clearly

UK - Southampton Echo

HAMPSHIRE: Health bosses in north-west postpone consultation scheme
Protests put fluoride plans on back burner
By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@daiiyecho.co.uk For up-to-the-minute news and information - dailyecho.co.uk
PLANS to fluoridate other parts of the UK have been put on hold because of the campaign against the scheme in Hampshire.
Health bosses have postponed a consultation on a scheme to fluoridate parts of the north-west to wait for the results of a legal challenge against the decision to add the chemical to water supplies in and around Southampton.
The High Court is currently considering an application for a judicial review of South Central Strategic Health Authority's (SHA) move to give the controversial scheme the green light. The Hampshire scheme is the first in the country to be approved since a change in the law over how fluoridation is introduced. A Southampton woman has been granted legal aid to lodge the legal bid, because she believes health bosses should not have approved the plans because of public opposition.
Papers have been filed by her solicitors and the SHA, and a senior judge is currently considering if there is a case to answer.
A decision is expected imminently. If a review goes ahead and the decision is ruled unlawful, it could mean plans to add fluoride to the water supplies of almost 200,000 homes in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams have to be J scrapped.
The SHA has set aside £400,000 to fight the challenge, saying it has done nothing wrong. It has always insisted it met or exceeded all its legal requirements during the 14-week public consultation last year.
The pending legal action has already been given as a reason for the Government not intervening in the fluoride row, after campaigners collected 15,000 names .on a petition urging action, and the health ombudsman not investigating the SHA. Now it means other similar schemes have been put on the back burner.
Primary care trusts in the north-west were due to be asked to consider fluoridation plans this summer, but that has now been put back until at least the autumn, and possibly next year.
In a statement, NHS North West's chief executive Mike Farrar said costs of potential schemes in the area, which could cover Manchester, Merseyside, Lancashire and Cumbria, have "increased significantly".
"Should permission be granted, the process may take several months and it is prudent for NHS North West to wait for the outcome before committing significant resources on this matter," said Mr Farrar.

Sunday, July 26, 2009


Water Fluoridation Prof.Roger Masters on Alex Jones Tv Water Fluoridation 1\4

[edit] Academic career
Roger Masters has made deep and wide-ranging contributions in social science. The central concern of his career has been how biological circumstances influence individual behavior and social outcomes.

Masters began his career in political philosophy as a student of Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago. His dissertation and subsequent book (Masters 1968) helped demonstrate the importance of Jean-Jacques Rousseau in modern thought. He translated and edited influential new editions of Rousseau’s works (Masters 1964a, 1978), and later co-edited the only complete English edition of his Collected Writings (Masters and Kelly 1990). The role of natural science in early political thought is also addressed in books on Machiavelli and Leonardo da Vinci (Masters 1996, 1998).

Masters’ investigation of how nature influences human societies led to significant contributions in the field of international relations (Masters 1964b, 1967) as well as human ethology and sociobiology (Masters 1983, 1989, Masters and McGuire 1994). This work included pioneering laboratory experiments in political communication (Masters 1981, Masters et al. 1987). Later, Masters’ research on biology and human behavior led to new epidemiological evidence regarding the behavioral impacts of neurotoxins, first on the consequences of lead poisoning (Masters, Hone and Doshi 1998), and then on the links between a common method of water fluoridation to elevated blood lead and a higher prevalence of violent crime, substance abuse and learning disabilities (Masters and Coplan 1999, Masters et al. 2000).

Masters’ work has pioneered the application of natural science discoveries to the social sciences and government policy. He was a founding member and serves on the Executive Council of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, and leads an ongoing consultancy on biology and politics for the U.S. Department of Defense in collaboration with anthropologist Lionel Tiger and neuroscientist Michael McGuire. He served on the 2006-07 “Get the Lead out of Vermont” task force, and is frequently consulted by other government agencies or activists concerned with the behavioral consequences of environmental toxins.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Smiles Forever 4 @ d2dental.com

Is fluorosis good for dentists? - No mention of costs.

UK - East Lancashire - Fluoride plan costs increase

Fluoride plan costs increase
1:20pm Friday 24th July 2009
CONTROVERSIAL plans to put fluoride in tap water in the North West have been delayed after projected costs rocketed.
Supporters of the controversial move, which has been given the go-ahead by NHS bosses on the South Coast, say it would improve East Lancashire’s poor record on tooth decay.
But opponents dispute the claim and have raised other health fears.
NHS North West said it was monitoring the situation in Southampton, where opponents have launched a legal challenge.
But in a report, it said the original costings for the scheme, thought to be about £102million had “increased significantly” and said local health trusts would not be asked to consider it until after the summer, delaying the start of a public consultation exercise.

UK - Southampton Echo Letters

Fluoridation: What about democracy!
WELL, now we all know what Messrs Denham and Whitehead think of democracy, they don't believe in it!
Consultation. I might point out to Messrs Denham and Whitehead that we have already had two consultations, or what passes nowadays for consultations?
In a 14 week 'consultation' 72 per cent said no to fluoridation of our water supply. In a separate telephone survey 38 per cent also said no to fluoridation.
The Strategic Health Authority, an anonymous and unelected Quango, twelve people I believe, decided that they knew best and totally ignored both 'consultations'. I would like to point out that Quangos are appointed by politicians.
What makes Mr Denham think that in my future consultation, if the vote still goes against them, the SHA will actually take any notice of the result.
What has happened to make Denham and Whitehead choose to ignore their leaders' state-" ment that the will of the people should be taken into account.
Still, never mind, there is a referendum, or as some call it, a general election, coming up next year. We can all show what we think of Messrs Denham and Whitehead then.
I do note that both our MPs state that referendums are pretty expensive. So are MPs it seems, very expensive in fact, but we have to have them!
MR A CAWS, Southampton.

ECHO readers (July 13) will have been struck by the irony of John Denham's remarks about referenda being expensive, especially given the huge amount of money already wasted on promoting fluoridation.
However, since the statement by the Department of Health that government policy was that fluoridation "should not be introduced unless the. local population was shown to be in favour", claimed the authority of the health minister in person, and since the local population is manifestly NOT in favour, I have pointed out to Mr Denham that no elaborate process is needed.
Since the SHA flagrantly disregarded that stated policy, all that is required is for health minister to make an announcement that the SHA decision is invalid, a move which can be accomplished in a few minutes, and involves no expense.
G PAYNE, Southampton.

Friday, July 24, 2009

Who’s Really Guarding Your Water Supply?

A Special Interview with Dr. Bill Osmunson
By Dr. Mercola

Click title to hear interview or above to read transcript.

UK - Lymington Times - Health chiefs have vowed that their decision to add fluoride to Totton's water supply will not be overturned

Health chiefs have vowed that their decision to add fluoride to Totton's water supply will not be overturned despite Hampshire County Council agreeing to look into the possibility of a referendum.
The measure to fight child tooth decay, which is targeted at Southampton, will affect about 8,000 Totton residents if it comes into force in 2010 due to the layout of the pipes and will mean an increase in fluoride from its current level of 0.08 parts per million to one part per million.
The decision was unanimously made by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) in February after proposals from Southampton Primary Care Trust despite 72% of residents stating they did not want it.
At a meeting of the full county council on Thursday in last week, Totton south and Marchwood member David Harrison proposed that a public vote on fluoride should be taken.
He said: "The Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that local people should decide the issue. Clearly then,
some sort of public vote should take place so that this can happen."
In noting the motion, the county council referred it for consideration to the health overview and scrutiny committee which will assess the logistical, cost and legal implications of making a request for a public referendum and whether it would be possible for such a request to be carried out at a sub-regional level. The committee is due to report back in September.
Leader of the council, Coun. Ken Thornber, said: "We have already made our views very clear on this matter and do not support fluoridation. Although we understand the wish to tackle tooth decay rates among children in specific Hampshire communities, the case for widespread fluoridation has not been made scientifically.
"Our concern remains that there are still too many unanswered questions surrounding the effects of fluoride, not only on otherwise healthy teeth that may develop a degree of fluorosis as a result, but also on the body as a whole.
"We do need to engage with the strategic health authority on the possibilities for a future referendum or public ballot, but any decision in support of such action should be deferred until we have had a chance to first look carefully at several issues.
"We would not want to jeopardise the strong arguments we intend to make as part of our witness statement for the judicial review of the strategic health authority's final decision, nor would we wish to fully support a referendum without knowing the legal position of such a move.
"Similarly it's important to carefully examine how any public vote could be conducted so that the process has integrity and that there is public confidence in the result. We would also wish to clarify what costs there might be to the public and what resources might be needed."
He added that an actual referendum would need to be the subject of a specific bill approved by Parliament and at this stage it was unclear what powers the government has to ask for a referendum in a sub-region.
Coun. Harrison added: "I'm pleased with this outcome. Almost all members seem to agree that the plans should not proceed without public consent. This latest development will add to the pressure on the strategic health authority to put their plans on hold."
However a spokesperson for the health authority told the 'A&T': "Having followed due process and arrived at this conclusion, the SHA is confident that the decision taken remains in the best interest of the local population in the fight against childhood tooth decay.
"The authority is not aware of any additional evidence or reason that would justify the decision to fluoridate the water in Southampton to be reversed."

UK - HAMPSHIRE: Health regulators will not examine controversial decision

HAMPSHIRE: Health regulators will not examine controversial decision
Ombudsman: we won't look at fluoride verdict
newsdesk@dailyecho.co.uk For up-to-the-minute news and information - dailyecho.co.uk
Health regulators will not scrutinise the controversial decision to fluoridate Hampshire water supplies. The health service ombudsman says it won't examine concerns over South Central Strategic Health Authority's (SHA) public consultation on the scheme because of a potential legal challenge going through the courts. But they left the door open to carrying out an investigation if the judicial review fails to answer campaigners' complaints.
New Forest East MP Julian Lewis and Totton county councillor David Harrrison jointly asked the regulators to examine the way the SHA carried out last year's consultation, fore giving the scheme the goahead in February
They claimed the authority had been "hopelessly biased" in its advice to residents on the arguments surrounding the plans to add fluoride to the tap water delivered to nearly 200,000 homes. The politicians are also unhappy because they believe health bosses ignored public opinion by approving fluoridation for parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams. The Daily Echo has backed campaigners calls for a referendum on the scheme, giving residents the final say on the plans.
Dr Lewis said the ombudsman's decision is disappointing, but not a major setback.
"Of the two methods of tackling this problem, the judicial review is undoubtedly more important," he said. "It would be valuable if the ombudsman eventually condemns the flawed and biased consultation staged by the SHA.
"However, the intervention of the court, if successful, would be a far bigger setback to the pro-fluoride fanatics."
More than 10,000 people responded to the 14-week consultation, with 72 per cent of those from the affected area saying they were opposed to the plans.
In a separate phone poll of 2,000 residents, 38 per cent were against fluoridation compared to 32 per cent who said they supported it.
The SHA has always insisted it met or exceeded all its legal obligations in carrying out the consultation, and they took people's views on board before approving the plans.
Guidance said bosses also had to consider scientific evidence before agreeing or rejecting a scheme.
The ombudsman said that, although the issue is one it might normally investigate, it would be inappropriate to do so until the conclusion of any court proceedings.
A high court judge is currently considering whether there is a case to answer against the SHA.
But the ombudsman added that it would assess a further complaint if the judicial review leaves any unanswered questions.
Councillor Harrison said: "It must be increasingly obvious to the SHA that it cannot proceed without public consent. Even if the legal challenge fails, it will have to overcome a ruling by the ombudsman."

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Australia - Fluoride sickness claims rubbished

Fluoride sickness claims rubbished
Andrew Mathieson23rd July 2009 03:34:51 PMResidents from across the region are contacting State Government complaining fluoridation of the water supply is making them sick, according to Department of Human Services. TheY have complained of problems including nausea, bloating, urgent and frequent urination, fatigue, increased thirst, aching limbs, poor sleep and itchy skin or rashes over the past two weeks. But department spokesperson Bram Alexander dismissed their fears that fluoridation was making them sick. “I wouldn’t have thought there would be an issue because fluoride has been in Melbourne for over 30 years,” he said. “It is our advice that, in terms of hyper-sensitivity and allergic reaction, we are not aware of any clinical or scientific evidence that is credible. “Just because they have contacted us to say they think something might be going on, doesn’t mean it is.” Mr Alexander said traces of fluoride were a “naturally occurring substance”, which had always been in Geelong’s water supply at low levels. But a research officer for a lobby group fighting fluoridation in the region backed up the complaints. Phillip Robertson said health authorities were putting their “head in the sand”. “Their only answers are that it is quite safe,” he said. “They cannot simply admit people are becoming sick because they would have to stop fluoridation immediately.” The registered poison entered Geelong’s water on June 22 after years of protest from Barwon Association for Freedom from Fluoridation. Victorian and national health authorities claim small doses help protect teeth against decay. Mr Robertson expected the number of sufferers to further swell as more people built up allergies and toxic reactions. He said about “a couple a day” were reporting ailments potentially due to fluoridation. “This is consistent with research that has been in many countries overseas where about four or five per cent of the community drinking or bathing in the water becomes ill,” Mr Robertson said. “I would say we are still scratching the surface of the first initial reaction.” Mr Robertson, a naturopath, said many of his patients had left Melbourne because fluoride was “making them sick”.

UK - Manchester Fluoride plan hit by delay

Fluoride plan hit by delay
Amanda Crook
July 23, 2009
PLANS to add fluoride to the water in Greater Manchester have been delayed because of a legal challenge to a similar proposal elsewhere.
Health bosses have decided to wait and see whether campaigners opposed to a fluoridation scheme in Southampton win a judicial review there before deciding whether to hold a public consultation into the issue here.

Primary care trusts - PCTs - were due to be asked to consider detailed plans for a local scheme over the summer but this will now be delayed until at least the autumn but possibly until next year.

Mike Farrar, chief executive of NHS North West, which is researching the scheme and would hold a public consultation on the plans on behalf of the PCTs, says costs of a possible scheme have 'increased significantly'.

In a statement to the NHS North West board he said: "Following the decision of NHS South Central to proceed with a fluoridation scheme in Southampton, local opponents have sought permission for a judicial review.

"At the time of writing the outcome of this application is not yet known. Should permission be granted, the process may take several months and it is prudent for NHS North West to wait for the outcome before committing significant resources on this matter."
The High Court is expected to make a preliminary ruling on whether there is a case to answer in Southampton any time now.

If campaigners meet the criteria to allow the case to go ahead it is expected to be listed late this year and NHS North West will wait for the outcome of the case before taking the next step.

When the Southampton case finishes, all 24 of the north west's PCTs will be sent the updated plans. which are expected to include details of four possible schemes. Last year a report suggested it would cost between £35m and £102m to set up as scheme for adding fluoride to the water system in parts of the region but all of them include most of Greater Manchester.

Health chiefs have identified four options: to add fluoride to the entire north west water supply (80 water plants); water supplied to Greater Manchester, Merseyside and parts of Lancashire (21 plants); Greater Manchester, Merseyside, parts of Lancashire and Cumbria (21 plants); 18 plants which supply most of Greater Manchester and Merseyside and parts of Lancashire and Cumbria.

The schemes would cost between £2m and £6.5m a year to run.

The British Dental Association say putting fluoride into some water supplies 'could dramatically reduce the levels of tooth decay and give children a decent start in life'.

But anti-fluoride campaigners say it is potentially dangerous mass medication. They oppose a public consultation, claiming people are being misled.

UK - Southampton daily Echo

Will of people must prevail.
THE issue of whether or not fluoride is added to tap water is of huge significance. It is about how we wish to order society. It is a fundamental test. Do we live in a democracy or have we given up on the idea?
I have always entertained the notion that important decisions should be made by those that we elect. If those who exercise power over us fail to deliver, we can get rid of them.
I had thought that a consultation was an exercise in finding out what people think. I didn't expect that the Strategic Health Authority (SNA) undertaking a consultation would ever expect to get away with promoting only one side of an argument.
Worse still, when it was clear that most people expressing an opinion were against the proposals, they decided to go ahead anyway. Now, they are busy telling us that their wishes will prevail, no matter what a future further ballot, opinion poll or referendum might say.
It seems that our government gave the SHA the power to determine this issue. The fact that only one of the 12 unelect-ed board members lives in the area to receive the fluoride makes a mockery of the assurance from Prime Minister Gordon Brown that local people will decide.
I am a member of a town council, a district council and Hampshire County Council. , On all three levels of government we debated the issue. I and other elected councillors, who represent thousands of people, decided that we should not support adding fluoride to tap water. The SHA have given no greater weighting to this than they would have to any individual making a view known.
Where detailed questions and concerns have been raised about the proposals, the SHA have often failed to address them.
The consultation process was flawed and will be challenged. The proposals themselves may in fact be illegal. The fact that the water companies have required an absolute indemnity from any legal claims arising from fluoride added to tap water, might just offer a clue about the significance of the risk.
You and I, the taxpayer, are picking up the bill for this sham of a consultation. You will also be paying for the fluoride to be added to tap water. You will in turn be picking up the bill for any legal costs and successful claims made by individuals demonstrating harm from fluoride in the tap water.
Can we tolerate this? Absolutely not! Join groups like Hampshire Against Fluoride, write to your MPs, send notice that you will .refuse to pay for tap water that has fluoride added to it. The will of the people must prevail.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

USA - University Of Maryland Dental School Helps Doctors, Nurses Halt Infant Tooth Decay

University Of Maryland Dental School Helps Doctors, Nurses Halt Infant Tooth Decay
Main Category: Dentistry
Article Date: 22 Jul 2009 - 2:00 PDT
Across the state of Maryland, there are now doctors and nurses, freshly trained in pediatric dental health care, who can help stem an alarming number of 3-year-old children who arrive for their first dentist visit with teeth "just melting away."

Many children are not seen by a dentist until they are age 3, says Norman Tinanoff, DDS, MS, professor at the University of Maryland Dental School. "And among those in low socioeconomic status, there is also often inadequate dental health education," says Tinanoff.

Dental caries disease starts in infants, as the cavity-causing bacteria are transferred from mothers. National surveys from 1988 to 2004 showed a sharp rise in the prevalence of dental decay in U.S. poor children under age 5.

More than 400 physicians and nurse practitioners who participate in the Maryland Medicaid Program have received training in infant and toddler dental health care through a program run by the Dental School. The training and Medicaid certification will directly lead to more young children being referred to dentists and introduced early in life to oral health care, says Tinanoff, who is program director of the Dental School's Department of Pediatric Dentistry.

The training allows the physicians and nurse practitioners to be certified by Medicaid and then reimbursed for providing fluoride varnish treatments after conducting oral health assessments for young children and toddlers. The program Maryland's Mouths Matter: Fluoride Varnish and Oral Health Screening Program for Kids began July 1 and covers children who are Medicaid recipients, ages 9 to 36 months, during their Medicaid scheduled well-child visits.

"If [dental caries disease] is not caught early, this is risky business," says Tinanoff. "We have parents come in [to the Dental School public clinic] and say my child's teeth are just melting away. A child with dental caries is not easy for the parent. It's not easy for me. It's not easy for the child."

In addition to applying the fluoride varnish--a highly accepted decay prevention tool--physicians and nurses in the program can provide oral health screenings, risk assessments, and oral health guidance for parents or legal custodians..

Maryland is 94% fluoridated : NYSCOF

UK - MP's speech in the House of Commons

In the time available to me tonight, I want to touch on a principle, a policy and a tribute. The principle is that the fluoridation of water should not be carried out without the general consent of the people affected by it. In an unusual, and quite positive, cross-party alliance, the Liberal Democrat councillor, Councillor David Harrison, who represents Totton in my constituency, and I, as the Conservative MP, have been working together to try to involve the ombudsman in exposing the corruption of a flawed consultation process that completely ignored the fact that 72 per cent. of the people who responded to it were against that kind of mass medication.

I will say no more about the specifics of that case, however, because the matter is now subject to judicial review and I do not wish to trespass on that territory. That is why I shall talk only about the principle. The problem was first highlighted in March 2005, when the Water Fluoridation (Consultation) (England) Regulations 2005 were being debated in the upper House. Earl Howe, the shadow Health Minister, drew the House's attention to regulation 5, which was passed into law. It states:

"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."

The noble Earl Howe asked what this was supposed to mean, and pointed out:

"When we debated Section 58 of the 2003 Act, the Minster emphasised that:

'no new fluoridation scheme would go ahead without the support of the majority of the local population determined by local consultations conducted by strategic health authorities in England and the National Assembly in Wales'."

Earl Howe emphasised the words "majority of the local population" and went on to observe:

"I see nothing in the order which fulfils that undertaking."—[ Hansard, House of Lords, 8 March 0005; Vol. 670, c. 709.]

Neither do I. However, even if 72 per cent.—or 100 per cent.—of the people oppose mass fluoridation of a water supply, as long as the strategic health authority can satisfy itself that the health arguments outweigh the opinions of the people affected, their opinions can be ignored. Only the courts and the ombudsman can do something about this; MPs evidently have no influence, and we must await the results of the case to which I have alluded.

Barbara Keeley (Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons; Worsley, Labour)

Dr. Lewis raised the tricky question of fluoridation, which also arises for us in the north-west. He covered the issues well, noting that it is difficult for MPs to influence the situation because the decisions are taken out of our hands.

David Drew (Stroud, Labour)

There is an active all-party group on fluoridation, which has exposed some practices and the way in which area health authorities have tried to drive fluoridation forward. Should not the House have a further opportunity to review the use of fluoridation as an alternative to good dental practice? It is not acceptable, and that should be said loud and clear.

UK - Heads we win, tails you lose.

Heads we win, tails you lose.
WELL done John Denham and Alan Whitehead for opposing a fluoridation referendum.
The local residents have already voted on a consultation instigated by the SHA, not by us. The SHA should now abide by that result and not hide behind a section of law that allows them to play 'Heads we win, tails you lose!'.
Being local MPs, please look at Statutory Instrument 2005 No.921, Section 5, Outcome of Consultation and ask yourselves, and us, how and why this section should be rewritten. The current wording makes a mockery of any vote or consultation as it allows the 'Shahs' of England to override all opposition.
JWE POPE, Southampton.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009


FAN Bulletin 1084: HUGE victory in Thunder Bay, Ontario
I am off to the UK in a few hours but I had to share this exciting news with you before I left. Last night saw a huge victory in Thunder Bay, Ontario. The public health and dental bureaucrats - at considerable tax payer expense - have been trying very hard for two years to pressurize the officials in Thunder Bay to fluoridate their water. Despite a meeting in which about a dozen "experts" including the notorious Dr. Peter Cooney (The Chief Dental Officer for Canada) took till 2:40 in the morning trying to persuade the councilors that fluoridation was "safe and effective," the councilors said 'No thanks.' Clearly, they are less easily fooled than graduate students participating in the Public Health program at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill (see yesterday's bulletin).
I have always felt that the most likely country to reject fluoridation (of the handful of countries that still engage in this obsolete practice) will be Canada - with, of course, enormous ramifications for the US and the other English speaking fluoridating countries. In my experience fighting incinerator proposals in seven provinces in Canada, I have found Canadian citizens more open minded and less gullible than in America and their decision makers more ready to listen to them.

The promoters of fluoridation in Canada know that the future of this practice in their country is on a knife edge. Montreal has never fluoridated. Quebec City stopped last year after 36 years of fluoridation. Only a handful of communities in British Columbia fluoridate and one of those stopped a few weeks ago. Calgary came within one vote of stopping the practice there and rumblings are being heard in Edmonton.

Meanwhile, Ontario sports one of the best organized and best informed groups of activists in any state or province I have had the pleasure to visit. They have already helped to pull the plugs in three large communities in the Niagara region as well as Dryden. Now they are knocking on the doors of several of the remaining fluoridated cities there: including Hamilton, London, Waterloo, Oakville, Oshawa, Ottawa and Toronto. Their campaign has been greatly helped with resolutions opposing fluoridation from both Canadian Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) and Great lakes United (GLU). The promoters know they are in trouble and that is why Cooney et al. put so much effort into trying to reverse the tide in Thunder Bay. Cooney made countless visits to this city over the last two years. He is reputed to have insisted on seeing each councilor one at a time. Meanwhile, Health Canada maintains that while they support fluoridation by providing information they don't get involved in the political process!

Hearty congratulations to the citizens who provided the other side of this story and the councilors who resisted the pressure (and bullying) of local, provincial and federal health and dental bureaucrats. Now please read the article below, and enjoy this victory on the road to end fluoridation in Ontario, Canada, and the rest of the world.

Paul Connett

In fluoridated Chicago, Illinois:NYSCOF

...........Erie’s Oral Health Program cares for children and pregnant women to provide comprehensive oral health services and oral health education. 70% of children under 12 in Erie’s service area do not have a dentist, nearly 50% of children had
not seen a dentist in over six months and 52% of children currently had a dental problem, Francis said........

Australia - Give us fluoride

Badger Creek resident Rena Mauldon is disappointed at the effect she believes unfluoridated water has had on her daughter Leylah’s teeth

Give us fluoride
By Monique Ebrington
21st July 2009 02:00:20 AM
YARRA Valley’s unfluoridated water has parents concerned about the quality of their children’s teeth.
Badger Creek resident Rena Mauldon wasn’t smiling when she took her five-year-old daughter Leylah to the dentist earlier this month.
Ms Mauldon said she and Leylah had a stringent tooth brushing routine and avoided giving her daughter lollies and cordials.

So when Ms Mauldon took Leylah to the dentist she was shocked about the poor quality of her daughter’s teeth.

“When the dentist told me about the decay in Leylah’s teeth I felt horrible, like I had done something wrong,” Ms Mauldon said.

“I thought I had taken all the precautions to avoid her having bad teeth,”

“The dentist asked, do we have fluoride in water because if you don’t then that’s a big issue. I was like, OK if she said that then I’m going to get fluoride.”

Ms Mauldon said she was also surprised when she couldn’t find fluoride supplements at both of Healesville’s pharmacies.

Healesville Pharmacy pharmacist John Gaunson has been at the store for more than 20 years and said that a lack of demand has stopped his pharmacy from keeping fluoride supplements.

“We used to stock drops and tablets, however, if we don’t sell them we don’t keep them,” Mr Gaunson said.

“I think they [residents] expect the water supply to be fluoridated.”

According to Melbourne Water, ‘fluoride in water helps prevent tooth decay and is particularly effective in protecting children’s teeth while they are forming and helps reduce dental decay in adult teeth.’

The Mail understands the decision as to which communities have fluoridated water rests with the Department of Human Services (DHS).

DHS spokesman Bram Alexander said residents in Healesville and Badger Creek were drinking unfluoridated water.

He said communities interested in having fluoride extended to their area should approach their local MP or the Department of Human Services.

“The Victorian Government has a policy of extending the benefits of fluoridated drinking water supplies to those parts of Victoria that currently do not have it,” Mr Alexander said.

“Fluoride is safe and effective and is supported by all leading national and international health and dental organisations. The jury is in on fluoride — it is beneficial for the dental health of the entire population.”

Ms Mauldon said she has heard other mothers speaking of their child’s major dental work and hoped other parents were aware that there was no fluoride in the water.

“I’d hate for other parents to feel the same way I did when I took Leylah to the dentist that day,” she said.

“I felt like I was the one who had let her down.”

Hope somebody informs her about the negative side of fluoridation.

Canada - Water Fluoridation Faces Challenges Tonight

Water Fluoridation Faces Challenges Tonight
Thunder Bay, ON -- Mayor Lynn Peterson has made no bones about where she stands on the issue of water fluoridation in Thunder Bay. "The Thunder Bay water supply is not fluoridated nor has any decision been made to do so however the Thunder Bay District Health Unit has mounted a campaign to have fluoride added to our water (that is likely the source of the pamphlet you refer to) I have read many conflicting reports on fluoride and for many reasons will not support fluoridating the City's water system," is the message from Mayor Peterson.

Mayor Peterson in taking a firm stand on the issue is likely setting a tone for the debate at City Council this evening.

She is also taking the same stand that the citizens of Thunder Bay have taken in past referendums as well, where the people have voted to keep their water supply free of fluoride.

Today, the Ontario Dental Association has brought a team to Thunder Bay to help push Council toward moving to water fluoridation. "There is no debate - community water fluoridation is the most cost-effective and safe way to prevent tooth decay," said Dr.Kirshen. "As a dentist, I see the pain and suffering people with poor oral health experience; as a father, I would never promote anything that would expose my children to harm."

The ODA states, "In response to increasing rates of tooth decay in the region, in 2007 the Thunder Bay District Board of Health made recommendations to City Council on improving the oral health of its citizens, one of which was adding fluoride to the public water supply".

The debate has divided with each side digging in and it is unlikely that either side will take the time to listen to the arguments from the other side. That is part of the problem when campaigns like the fluoride one pits diverse opinions against each other.

In an era where City Council is seeking to control costs, it is likely that the prospect of spending money on fluoride treatment for the water in the city won't carry much weight.

Perhaps a simpler solution, and maybe more effective would be for the ODA and Health Board to invest the funds in their fluoride campaign into making more affordable dental care including dental fluoride treatments available to lower income families and individuals in our community.

It could be as simple as offering toothbrushes and fluoride toothpaste to young people through the schools.

Tonight's debate should be interesting, but if Council follows the lead set by Mayor Peterson, this is a proposal that will likely be voted down tonight.

James Murray

Quit popping pills

Quit popping pills
The recent death of Michael Jackson should teach us all a lesson about the dangers of all the prescription drugs the pharmaceutical companies are dumping down our throats. Studies and deaths, some from suicide, have shown that some antidepressants and other medications are extremely dangerous, especially in children, yet the Food and Drug Administration does virtually nothing about the problem because its pockets are lined by the pharmaceutical companies.

The problem starts in gradeschool. When 5-year-old children are unable to act like 40-year-old businessmen, the schools tell parents their child have problems and they had better take Ritalin so they can act like perfect little obedient zombies in class. As they get older and addicted, Ritalin can cause other issues that can lead to teenagers going through the juvenile court system, where they are found to be angry or depressed and are immediately force-fed antidepressants by the courts that have made their recommendations to the doctors who prescribe them.

These medications mess with peoples' minds in bad ways, but for some reason our schools, courts and doctors have too much faith in magic pills - either that or the pharmaceutical companies are paying them to distribute the medicines. Pharmaceutical companies have too much power in doctors' offices and in Washington, and they put our health at risk every day. Whether it is with antidepressants, fluoride in our water, or the aspartame in our soda, profit - not public safety - is all that matters to them.


Eau Claire

Monday, July 20, 2009

USA - NWAnews.com :: Northwest Arkansas' News Source

NWAnews.com :: Northwest Arkansas' News Source
"Oral health also poised itself as a major health concern for Benton County with 42 percent of those surveyed reporting that they have had permanent teeth pulled as a result of tooth decay or gum disease; 34 percent said that it had been more than a year since their last dental visit."

Most of Benton County, Arkansas is fluoridated: NYSCOF


Research report
Fluoride 42(2)127–132
April-June 2009
Neurological manifestations of fluoride in a human population
Sharma, Sohu, Jain
127 127
JD Sharma,a Deepika Sohu, Parul Jain
Jaipur, India
SUMMARY: A health survey of a human population exposed to low, medium, and high
fluoride (F) concentrations in drinking water in villages of Sanganer Tehsil, India, was
conducted. A total of 2691 subjects were personally interviewed and classified from
low (<1.0 ppm), medium (1.0-1.5 ppm) and high (1.5-6.4 ppm) F villages. Among the
subjects were 1145 children aged 12 to18 years and 1546 adults aged >18 years who
were interviewed for various neurological ailments, viz., headache, insomnia,
lethargy, polyuria, and polydipsia. There were no neurological manifestations in
children in the low and medium F villages, whereas, in the high F villages, 9.48% of
the children had headache, 1.21% had insomnia, and 3.23% exhibited lethargy. There
were no cases of polyuria or polydipsia among the children in any of the villages.
Among adults in the low, medium, and high F villages, 1.56%, 2.51%, and 26.96%,
respectively, suffered with headache, while 1.17%, 1.12%, and 24.74% had insomnia,
and 2.73%, 3.63%, and 23.70% manifested lethargy. No cases of polyuria or
polydipsia were reported in the low and medium F villages, whereas in the high F
villages there were 0.74% and 1.19% cases, respectively. The severity of the ailments
increased with the increasing F concentration in the drinking water. Although the
percentage of headache, insomnia, and lethargy among the adults was fairly small in
the low and medium F villages, it was considerable in the high F endemic villages,
clearly indicative of a role of fluoride in such neurological outcomes. The data also
indicate that the largest number of cases were headache, followed by lethargy and
insomnia in the endemic village areas.


Fluoride 42(2)157
April-June 2009
Osteosarcoma is a rare malignant bone tumor disease presenting painful
swelling that occurs most commonly in children and young adults. Various
proposed etiological factors for osteosarcoma are ionizing radiation, family history
of bone disorders and cancer, chemicals (fluoride, beryllium, and vinyl chloride),
and viruses. The status of fluoride levels in serum of osteosarcoma is still not clear,
although recent reports indicate there may be a link between fluoride exposure and
osteosarcoma. Glycoproteins and glycosaminoglycans are an integral part of bone,
and prolonged exposure to fluoride for long duration has been shown to cause
degradation of collagen and ground substance in bones. The present study was
planned to analyze serum fluoride, sialic acid, calcium, phosphorus, and alkaline
phosphatase levels in 25 osteosarcoma patients and to compare them with those of
two 25 age- and sex-matched groups of patients: (1) a group with bone-forming
tumors other than osteosarcoma and (2) a control group with musculo-skeletal
pain. Fluoride levels were analyzed by the ion selective F electrode, and sialic acid
was analyzed by Warren’s method. The mean serum fluoride concentration was
significantly higher in patients with osteosarcoma compared with the other two
groups. The mean value of serum fluoride in patients with other bone forming
tumors was approximately 50% of the osteosarcoma group; however, it was
significantly higher than in the musculo-skeletal-pain control group. Compared to
the control group, serum sialic acid concentration was also significantly higher in
patients with osteosarcoma as well as in the group with other bone-forming
tumors. There was, however, no significant difference in sialic acid levels in the
patients with osteosarcoma and those with other types of bone-forming tumors.
These results showing a higher serum fluoride level in osteosarcoma patients than
in the two other groups suggest a role of fluoride in the etiology of osteosarcoma.
Authors: Sandhu R, Lal H, Kharb S.
Correspondence: Department of Biochemistry, Pt B D Sharma University of Health Sciences, H
No 1447, sector-1, Urban Estate, Rohtak 124001, Haryana, India.
e-mail: simmikh@rediffmail.com
Keywords: Alkaline phosphatase; Osteosarcoma; Sialic acid; Serum fluoride
Source: Biol Trace Elem Res 2009;24 April.[Epub ahead of print 2009, DOI 10.1007/s12011-009-


http://www.FluorideAlert.Org FAN Bulletin 1082:

Australian fight back July 19, 2009,
As far as the willingness of a handful of countries to force fluoridation on its citizens, I find Australia the most frustrating and depressing. However, I have also been very impressed with the spirit of the individuals who are fighting back against the odds - odds not helped by a hugely indifferent media, an academic community which just doesn't want to get involved, and a largely apathetic public. Apathy rules in Oz. Most people have a very comfortable life there - and probably don't want to be worried about the possibility that what they are drinking every day may be robbing a few IQ points from their kids, lowering their own thyroid function or damaging their bones. Doesn't everyone have those aches and pains? Don't we all get very tired at times? Best not to know. If you don't know, you don't worry.Meanwhile, the philosophy of the state governments, which push this practice on their citizens, is "if you don't look you don't find." Despite the fact that Australia has been fluoridating the water of most of their major cities since the 1960's, their health agencies have steadfastly avoided doing any studies to check to see if there are any health problems. Instead, they have relied on the tame "research" of the literature by their rubber stamp federal government agency called the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The latest scientific travesty from this pathetic entity was their claim, in their 2007 report, that the findings in the US National Research Council, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of EPA's Standards (NRC, 2006) was not relevant to Australia. Such embarrassing conclusions are gobbled up by state officials determined - for whatever reason - to keep this practice going at all costs. Even when the rubber stamp NHMRC suggested - in 1991 - that governments should be tracking the level of fluoride in people's bones and checking the numerous anecdotal reports of people claiming that they were very sensitive to fluoride, neither the federal health agency nor the state health agencies have done either - and that's after 18 years!Instead of putting money into basic health research on this issue, the state agencies continue to put thousands of Australian dollars into PR firms to produce expensive glossy brochures answering their own self-serving questions. When I asked the Chief Health Officer of Victoria, soon after one of these brochures had appeared, if he would respond to my "50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation" he responded that "Neither I, nor my staff, have any intention of doing so!"When I asked him, "Why, if swallowing fluoride was good for teeth, was the level so low in mothers milk (0.004 ppm)" he responded, "So, Mother Nature has dealt some children a poor deal."Perhaps the most upsetting thing about Australia's pursuit of this practice is the point blank refusal of those who most confidently espouse its benefits and safety, to debate the issue with me in public, even though I have toured Australia three times and on each occasion local activists have challenged health and dental officials to do so. This gutlessness is in such sharp contrast to the world famous boldness of their renowned sportsmen. For courage, integrity and determination one has to look at the opponents of fluoridation. They represent the best of Australia. Here is some of their fight back against mandatory fluoridation and a way all our readers may be able to help their efforts.Australian fight back1) The Barwon Association for Freedom from Fluoridation (BAFF) is organizing a "Rally to Stop Fluoridation" outside Parliament House in Melbourne, on Wednesday, 29th July. We hope as many people as possible in communities in Victoria (and even from outside the state) will get to this rally. Below David McRae explains why it is so important. How you can help. For those outside Victoria and outside Australia, please send a short message of support to David so at the rally he can read out messages of solidarity from around the country and around world. David's email is djmcrae@ncable.net.au2) Gillian Blair has sent in an appeal to the Victorian state Ombudsman to investigate this issue (see letter below). In her letter she puts the foolishness and injustice of this practice very concisely. How you can help. Please send an email to Gillian (perhaps addressed to the Ombudsman) in support of her efforts. It would be helpful for the Ombudsman to know that his action (or inaction) is being keenly watched around the world. Gillian's email address is gillianb9@westvic.com.au.3) Wayne Evans has committed civil disobedience for the second time to draw attention to the forced fluoridation of Coff's Harbor in New South Wales and for the second time his action has earned front page coverage of the issue. See Wayne's explanation below why he is putting himself on the line for this issue. How you can help. Please email him with your moral support and suggestions. Wayne's email address is pev53897@bigpond.net.au4) According to David McRae, some people in Geelong are withholding payment of part of their water bill to protest the poisoning of their water. David explains: "A number of people are reporting that they are withholding the 'Water Volume' component of their bill, and informing Barwon Water of exactly why they are unwilling to pay for "poisoned water". So far a number of the people have had further letters from Barwon Water telling them to pay up "with the introduction of water fluoridation you are still required to pay bills as normal" or some such. Several have had calls or letters from debt collecting agency PROBE, that claims to act for Barwon Water. Other advice has told us that if PROBE has no contract to do business with you, you have no obligation to even enter into any discussion or written communication with them.It will be most interesting to see how far Barwon Water will go with heavying the non-bill payers. Will they restrict their water flow? Will they take them to court? A court case that involved a hearing on whether the water is "poisoned" or not, as consumers claim, is just what Australia needs."Paul Connett

Australia - Government guilty after fluoride overdose

Government guilty after fluoride overdose
20 Jul 09 @ 09:59am by Joel Gould
PINE Rivers residents may be able to sue the State Government for the over fluoridation of the water supply in May, Queensland Council for Civil Liberties president Michael Cope said.
An investigation by the International Water Centre slammed SEQwater’s performance regarding the incident, that occurred due to malfunctions at the North Pine Water Treatment plant. SEQwater was found to have breached the Water Supply Act and Water Fluoridation Act, both of 2008. Natural Resources, Mines and Energy Minister Stephen Robertson put SEQwater ``on notice’’ for the breach but Mr Cope pointed out that was tantamount to the government criticising the government. ``At the end of the day it (SEQwater) is a statutory authority owned by the government. It is the government,’’ Mr Cope said. Of larger concern to Mr Cope and of far greater interest to Pine Rivers residents is the government’s attempts to grant itself immunity from litigation in such a case. Section 94 of the Water Fluoridation Act states: ``A person does not have a civil right or remedy against a public potable (drinkable) water supplier in relation to the fluoridation of a public potable water supply under this act.’’ Mr Cope said the spirit of the section was to try and stop people from suing just because fluoride had been put in the water. But that was different from an overdose of fluoride that could lead to poisoning, he said. ``It may well be that a lawyer could work their way around that section,’’ Mr Cope said.

``The immunity the government have given themselves may actually be very limited. That section may well be read down in a situation like this where the evidence is that there has been a massive overdosing. ``If somebody can convince the court that what they have done is negligent then the government should be held liable.’’ Mr Cope said it was a matter of principle that the government should not be giving itself immunity from litigation in these circumstances. ``The government should be just as liable as any other citizen if it’s negligent. It is wrong for the government to put itself above the law,’’ he said.

UK - Letters to Daily Echo

Better ways of offering us fluoride
I AGREE that a referendum is a fairer way to decide if the Southampton area should be fluoridated than a vote by 12 unelected SHA members.
Care would need to be taken to ask an unbiased question which does not lead or influence the person voting.
It should be something like "Do you want fluoride to be added to your tap water supply?" Tick 'Yes' or 'No'.
"Sometimes a biased question has been asked such as 'If fluoride could help children's teeth would you be in favour?'"
However, the idea of adding a chemical to tap water to bring about changes in the human body is just not ethical.
If even one person does not want to be forced to drink this chemical, no matter what anybody else wants, then it is not acceptable to force them to drink it.
There are very few illnesses where a doctor can insist a patient must have treatment forced upon him.
In France fluoride is added to salt, but non-fluoridated salt is available so people still have the choice.
Fluoridated school milk is available but parents would be asked whether or not they give their permission. There are many ways to help children's teeth, but medicating everyone is not the answer.
A WILLS, Ruislip.

Poll us over fluoride with our water bills
SOUTHAMPTON'S two MPs show little support for democracy in their stance on the issue of fluoridation, if all they can suggest is for the SHA to again promote the pro-fluoridation view.
Most households facing the introduction of fluoride into drinking water receive an invoice at least annually from Southern Water. A tear-off slip on the invoice could ask those at the address to indicate Yes or No to fluoridation.
This should not be too costly a polling device and would probably bring in a larger response than that achieved in local council elections. A safeguard would be for all replies to be sent to a neutral source for counting!
Jim Horrocks, Hill Lane, Southampton.

Antibiotics to Avoid Like the Plague Due to FDA's Oversight Failure

Antibiotics to Avoid Like the Plague Due to FDA's Oversight Failure
Excerpt from an open letter to Congressman Holt from Jay S. Cohen, M.D. about severe, disabling reactions linked to Cipro, Levaquin, and other fluoroquinolone antibiotics:
Dear Congressman Holt,Thank you for taking the time to speak with people concerned about, or injured from, reactions associated with fluoroquinolone antibiotics (e.g. Levaquin, Cipro, Floxin, Tequin). I am the author of a study about severe, long-term fluoroquinolone reactions published in the December 2001 issue of the Annals of Pharmacotherapy.
These severe reactions are occurring in patients who are usually healthy, active, and young. Most often, the antibiotics are prescribed for mild infections such as sinusitis, urinary or prostate infections. Most reactions occur very quickly, sometimes with just a few doses of the fluoroquinolone antibiotic. Reactions are acute, severe, frightening, and often disabling.
Since the publication of my article with its 45 cases two and a half years ago, I have received e-mails from more than 100 people seeking help for their reactions. In most cases, their doctors have dismissed their complaints or outright denied that the reactions could occur with fluoroquinolones. Yet extensive medical workups do not find any other cause. Worse, there are no known effective treatments. Thus, these people suffer pain and disability for weeks, months, and years.I hope you will look seriously at this problem and respond accordingly. These people need your help. This is a largely preventable problem.
Thank you. Jay S. Cohen, M.D.?Associate Professor
Departments of Family and Preventive Medicine and of Psychiatry University of California, San Diegohttp://www.MedicationSense.com

UK - Southampton Daily Echo - 'Sheer arrogance'

'Sheer arrogance'
Health chiefs say they will plough ahead with fluoridation regardless of another public vote EVEN if you had a referendum we wouldn't change our minds!
By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk For up-to-the-minute news and information - dailyecho.co.uk
That's the message from health chiefs who say they will plough ahead with plans to fluoridate Hampshire water supplies regardless of whether the public get another chance to air their views.
Bosses at South Central Strategic Health Authority say it has already taken on board the opinions of county residents during a mass consultation -and another huge scale vote would not alter the outcome.
The Daily Echo is backing growing calls for a referendum on fluoridation for Southampton and surrounding areas, because campaigners argue the people's voices were ignored.
Today they branded the SHA "arrogant" for refusing to reconsider the decision in face of fierce opposition.
They were backed by one MP who claimed health chiefs were "in denial" over public opinion.
More than 10,000 people responded to the consultation, with 72 per cent of those living in the affected area - covering parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams - saying they were against it.
In a separate phone poll of 2,000 residents, 38 per cent opposed fluoridation compared to 32 per cent in favour.
Last week, Eastleigh Borough Council voted to demand the SHA holds a public poll, and is bound by its result, while several MPs have also said they believe it is the best way to resolve the issue.
But SHA campaigns manager Kevin McNamara insists the decision has already been made, adding: "We've done the opinion poll on this issue and the board would not reconsider its decision on the outcome of another one.
"A consultation has taken place and gathered a broad range of public opinion, and the board had to take into account all those points in making its decision. Any future polls or surveys would not alter the result."
"We're absolutely comfortable that at that stage it was a fair representation of public opinion in Southampton."
Hampshire Against Fluoridation chairman John Spottiswoode said the SHA's stance shows it is not interested in the voices of the people whose lives it is affecting. "It just confirms what we thought, that they are just sheer arrogant and not going to listen to what the people say," he said. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics said it is highly unethical to medicate people without their consent. The SHA is effectively saying they know better than anyone else, and won't listen to the research which shows it doesn't work and is damaging." Southampton North MP Sandra Gidley said the SHA is being "defensive" because it has failed to make the case for fluoridation. "The SHA has always been in denial over public feeling because it's quite clear to me that when the responses started coming in and were so heavily weighted in favour, they then produced their own poll," she said. "But even that showed that among those who had an opinion, people were against fluoridation so there's always been an agenda there. "To me it seems the only way of having proper clarity about public opinion is to ensure people have a vote and have access to the facts."

Sunday, July 19, 2009

The Dangers Of Fluoride

UK - Who decides on chemicals in milk?

Who decides on chemicals in milk?
Published Date: 17 July 2009
I WAS shocked when I received a letter from the junior school my daughter will be attending in September. She has always had school milk and the letter asked if I wanted her to have milk with fluoride in or without?
I could not believe schools are allowed to give a child chemicals to drink.
On reading the Sheffield schools website, it seems 40 schools have opted to have this in their school and you can have semi-skimmed without or full fat with fluoride.
Tt has put me off letting my daughter have milk at school in case she has the wrong one (I wanted her to have full fat, as she is by no means overweight and she has a healthy diet).
How can schools be allowed to do this? Is it not the school's responsibility to educate children about the importance of looking after their teeth and shouldn't parents, as they are their child's advocate, make sure they eat less sweets, drink less fizzy pop and brush their teeth correctly?
I mentioned this to a helper at school who said it was about choice – but where is the child's choice?
It's the parents' choice which is being sought.
In my opinion fluoride is a chemical, and we already have it in toothpaste and in some area's water supply.
It makes me angry and upset and I would like to know who agrees to these things.
Name and address supplied

Saturday, July 18, 2009


FAN Bulletin 1081: An excellent article and letter
July 18, 2009,
An excellent article appeared on the web site Examiner.com on July 16 (see below). It was written by Angela Schnaubelt, who describes herself as the "water examiner" from Minneapolis. In the article she addresses the dangers to babies if they drink fluoridated water. She uses both EWG's and FAN's web pages to support her commentary and in particular cites several professionals who appear on our DVD Professional Perspectives on Fluoridation. It is really good to see this issue raised in Minnesota, a state which has mandatory fluoridation.

An excellent letter by Michael Doll was published in the Chicago Daily Herald today -right under the noses of the headquarters of the American Dental Association.
Thank you Angela and thank you Michael.
It is exciting to read these words from people who have obtained a great deal of their information from our web site, and are prepared to use this as a reliable source to back up their views. That is why we are here.

It is also exciting to hear that FAN NZ has just opened a website for the newly formed coalition "Fluoridation Free NZ." Please check this out at http://www.banfluoride.org.nz/ and standby for news of a new website being organized by the citizens fighting fluoridation in Ireland.

For those who live in the UK and are within traveling distance of Leeds in Yorkshire you might want to hear my presentation on fluoridation which I will be giving there at 7 pm at the Crowne Plaza Hotel on Saturday July 25. Please contact Elizabeth McDonagh, President of the National Pure Water Association, for more details at elizabethmcdonagh17@btinternet.com .

If you are wondering how you can help this effort to end fluoridation worldwide please write to your Senator, Representative or MP and recommend that they go to our website http://www.FluorideAlert.org and watch the DVD Professional Perspectives on Fluoridation, which can be watched online. You are only asking for 28 minutes of their time, but it could make a difference in the whole lives of many of the citizens that they represent.

Paul Connett

Baby Water 101: Is fluoride in baby nursery water safe for infant formula and newborns?

Twin Cities Water Examiner

July 16, 2:09 PM

By Angela Schnaubelt

Babies under six months of age should not be given spring water, nursery water, well water, bottled water, or tap water unless parents are absolutely sure the levels of nitrates, lead, arsenic, and fluoride are safe. Other contaminants from water pollution can be harmful to newborns, as well. Due to immature immune systems, babies are more susceptible to contaminants in drinking water than the kids and adults.

Babies and Fluoride Dosage

According to Dr. William Hirzy, Vice President of the EPA employee union, the blood-brain barrier in infants is not fully developed, so fluoride dosage has more toxic effect and may contribute to lower IQ in children. (interview segment in the brilliant and thorough 28-minute video, Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation)

Dr. Vyvyan Howard, a Fetal Patho-Toxicologist, states, "there's lots of epidemiological evidence now that effects the intelligence of the child … [studies] coming out of China … and that's been reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences…" (Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation)

In an interview concerning her review of the toxicological literature on fluoride with Michael Connett, Dr. Kathleen M. Thiessen explains that since infants get all of their nutrition from fluid consumption, "the exposure of fluoride per unit body weight in an infant is large… We know that some of those exposure Fluoride Harmful to Babies levels will occur extremely easily in the very young."

Dr. Thiessen asserts, "It's just not wise to do it."

Too Much Fluoride is a Bad Thing, Especially for Babies

Environmental Working Group (EWG) published an article entitled, "Fluoride in Water May Harm Your Baby's Teeth" This article advocates reverse osmosis water for reducing fluoride exposure.

"A recent investigation by the EWG found that over-exposure to fluoride among infants is a widespread problem in most major American cities. EWG's study found that, on any given day, up to 60% of formula-fed babies in US cities were exceeding the Institute of Medicine's "upper tolerable" limit for fluoride." ("New Fluoride Warning for Infants," an article in Mothering Magazine, November, 2006)

Is the health of your baby worth the investigation and the research? There are lots of studies and research available on the Fluoride Action Network, and the Environmental Working Group websites.

More Information on Fluoride

Articles on FAN's website about Babies and Fluoride

Fluoride calcifies the pineal gland, the seat of human consciousness. Read more in this interesting blog with extensive fluoride information: Fluoride - Destruction of Our Consciousness, dated Aug. of 2008

Environmental Working Group has 25 article results for a search on fluoride babies.

Effects of fluoride on arthritis, hypothyroidism, kidney disease and the immunocompromised

Fluoridated water unsafe for infants

Dangers of chlorine in tap water

Make your own decision, but at least make it based on information from primary sources, not from hearsay of outdated EPA limits and profit-motivated ADA endorsements.

Our water should be kept fluoride-free
Letter to the Editor
Chicago Daily Herald

Published: 7/18/2009 12:00 AM

I read the "Your Health" column of July 13, and was shocked by the arrogance of the column stating that fluoridating bottled water will make it "more" healthy. One reads such things and (unless grounded in the understanding that we must question all that we read) would have the tendency to take the health information as gospel.

Let me say that there is very strong scientific evidence which holds that fluoridating the water is not "healthy" and can have detrimental side effects. Health risks associated with low-to-moderate doses of fluoride include: dental fluorosis; bone fracture; bone cancer; joint pain; skin rash, reduced thyroid activity; and IQ deficits.

Even if you want to use fluoride as part of your oral hygiene then you must use it topically. There is no evidence of its effectiveness if used systemically. Please go the site www.fluoridealert.org. There you will find much evidence that fluoridating our water is not the panacea that many imagine. The reality is that most countries in Europe have rejected fluoridation of their water. Less than 10 countries in the world fluoridate more than 50 percent of their water supplies, while almost half of the world's population who drink fluoridated water reside in North America.

It seems that the myth that fluoride is good for you is only put forward by well-meaning media outlets who take as their authority biased Dental Academy recommendations. How do we warn people that they must keep track of the amount of water they drink, the soda they drink and the prepared foods that they eat because they might be ingesting an unhealthy amount of fluoride based on the total quantity of fluoride ingested? There is only one way: our water should be kept fluoride free. Do not medicate our water.

Michael Doll