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

UK Against Fluoridation

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

USA - JADA Study Proves Fluoridation is Money down the Drain

JADA Study Proves Fluoridation is Money down the Drain
NEW YORK, Sept. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Children's cavity rates are similar whether water is fluoridated or not, according to data published in the July 2009 Journal of the American Dental Association by dentist J.V. Kumar of the NY State Health Department(1), reports NYSCOF.

In 2008, New York City spent approximately $24 million on water fluoridation ($5 million on fluoride chemicals)(1a). In 2010, NYC's fluoride chemicals will cost $9 million(1b).

Fluoride in water at "optimal" levels (0.7 - 1.2 mg/L) is supposed to reduce tooth decay without creating excessive fluorosis (fluoride-discolored and/or damaged teeth). Yet cavities are rampant in NY's fluoridated populations(1c).

Attempting to prove that fluorosed teeth have fewer cavities, Kumar uses 1986-1987 National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) data which, upon analysis, shows that 7- to 17-year-olds have similar cavity rates in their permanent teeth whether their water supply is fluoridated or not (Table 1).

In 1990, using the same NIDR data, Dr. John Yiamouyiannis published equally surprising results in a peer-reviewed journal. He concluded, "No statistically significant differences were found in the decay rates of permanent teeth or the percentages of decay-free children in the F [fluoridated], NF [non-fluoridated], and PF [partially fluoridated] areas."(2).

Kumar divided children into four groups based on their community's water fluoride levels:

Less than 0.3 mg/L where 55.5% had cavities

From 0.3 to 0.7 mg/L where 54.6% had cavities

Optimal 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L where 54.4% had cavities

Over 1.2 mg/L where 56.4% had cavities

"Dr. Kumar's published data exposes more evidence that fluoridation doesn't reduce tooth decay," says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.

"It's criminal to waste taxpayers' money on fluoridation, while exposing entire populations unnecessarily to fluoride's health risks, especially when local and state governments are attempting to balance budgets by cutting essential services," says Beeber.

Analysis of Kumar's data: http://tinyurl.com/MoneyDownTheDrain

More information about fluoride and tooth decay:
1) "The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren," Kumar & Iida Journal of the American Dental Association, July 2009 (Table 1)

1a) http://www.scribd.com/doc/18235930/NYC-Fluoridation-Costs-2008-Feb-2-2009-Letter-Page-1

1b) http://www.council.nyc.gov/html/budget/PDFs/fy_10_exec_budget_dept_enviro_protection.pdf
1c) http://www.freewebs.com/fluoridation/fluoridationfailsnewyork.htm
2) Fluoride: Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research
April 1990 (Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages 55-67) "Water Fluoridation & Tooth Decay: Results from the 1986-1987 National Survey of US Schoolchildren," by John A. Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D.
Contact: Paul Beeber, Esq 516-433-8882 nyscof@aol.com
References: http://tinyurl.com/NewsReleases
SOURCE NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation

UK - Daily Echo - Everyone should have a say

Everyone should have a say.
David Callaghan prospective Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Southampton Test.
ONE of the many things that have angered all of us opposed to the plan to add fluoride to Southampton's drinking water is that the decision was made by unelected officials.
Members of the South Central Strategic Health Authority board, who made the decision to fluoridate the city's water, are either paid staff or are given their role as non-executive directors by the NHS Appointments Commission.
In other words there is no opportunity for local people to have a say in who runs their health services, and of course, no way of stopping these unelected people from doing whatever they want.
Southampton Liberal Democrats are totally opposed to the proposal to add fluoride to drinking water. We also have policies for the way local health services are run that would make it unlikely a decision like this could be made without public support.
First of all we would scrap strategic health authorities which are expensive, unnecessary and undemocratic.
We would then set up elected health boards to replace primary care trusts (PCTs). This is important because it was a request from Southampton City PCT in 2005 that prompted the strategic health authority to first look at fluoridating Southampton's water.
These new elected health boards would not be able to ignore a public consultation which showed 72 per cent of people opposed to having fluoride in their tap water because they would be voted out.
So in Southampton each person who has a vote would get the chance to choose who they want to see running their primary care services such as GP surgeries.
Elected health boards would also take over the PCT role of commissioning hospital services. This gives them huge influence over hospitals and might, you never know, stop them raising car park charges again and again as has happened at Southampton General Hospital.
It is also Liberal Democrat policy to give local councils more power to scrutinise health authorities, and this would be another check on hospital bosses raking in millions from people who need to park their car when they are visiting a sick relative.
Health service managers have shown they cannot be trusted to apply common sense and to listen to local people - we need to give everyone a chance to have their say.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

UK - Daily Echo - Make your fluoride view plain

Make your fluoride view plain

CAMPAIGNERS have challenged the Prime Minister to make it clear if Hampshire residents should have the final say over plans to fluoridate their water, or admit the public consultation was a farce.
Gordon Brown has restated his belief decisions on fluoride should be made locally, but refused to step into the row over whether the views of people living in the affected area should have been binding.
Anti-fluoride activists have hit out at his comments, saying the Labour leader should say plainly if he thinks health bosses were right to Ignore public opinion in approving the plans, affecting nearly 200,000 people in and around Southampton.
The Daily Echo has backed calls for a referendum on the plans after 72 per cent of respondents to last year's public consultation who live in the affected areas said they don’t want fluoride in their water
Earlier this year, the PM gave hope to opponents of fluoridation just days before South Central Strategic Health Authority gave the green light to the scheme, when he said the decision should be up to local people.
But speaking to the Daily Echo during his party's conference in Brighton, he ducked the debate over the decision, which is now to be examined by Britain's high courts in a judicial review.
"I don't think you'd expect me to get involved in it," he said.
"The Government has spelt out the benefits of fluoridation, but we also understand there are local sensitivities and people have got to be able to make their decisions locally."
Hampshire Against Fluoridation chairman, John Spottiswoode, who is standing for the Green Party on an anti-fluoridation ticket against Cabinet member and Southampton Itchen MP John Denham at the next general election, said the PM's words are "inadequate".
"It's just too vague," he said. "The legislation was all passed around the basis it would go ahead only if local people were in favour of it and agreed with it.
"The SHA should never have progressed with the scheme once it was clear a majority of people were against it.
"Gordon Brown has said this sort of thing in the past, that it's a local decision, but what that actually means isn't clear.
"The fact is, no one on the SHA board lives in the affected area, so how is that local people making the decision?
"It should be that the results of the local consultation are binding, and that's what he should say, otherwise the local consultation is pointless."
Mr Spottiswpode added campaigners have been left angered because they have had no official response to a 15,000-name petition they delivered to Downing Street in June, calling on the PM to force the SHA to rethink its decision. Although he does not want to. step into the row, Mr Brown's comments to this paper in February form part of the legal case against the decision to approve fluoridation.
Lawyers for Southampton woman Geraldine Milner argue they are just one example of ministers saying the public must be in favour of adding fluoride to the water before it can actually happen.
Speaking to the Daily Echo when he and the Cabinet visited Southampton, Mr Brown said: "It's up to local people.
"I happen to think it's been a success in helping people, but everybody has got their views and that's the purpose of local consultation. It's important you have a balanced debate."
Jon Reeve

Monday, September 28, 2009

Meghan Telpner is a Toronto-based nutritionist and holistic lifestyle consultant

......The most recent addition to my homemade beauty and hygiene routine is homemade toothpaste. There are certain things I don't want in my toothpaste. One is sodium lauryl sulfates. This is what makes toothpaste foamy and is also what is used to clean garage floors. The second would be saccharine, an artificial sweetener and known cancer causing agent.

I will also gladly pass on fluoride. This one is controversial I know, but fluoride has been associated with increase cancer risk, birth defects, impaired immune function, changes in bone structure and strength, inhibits key enzymes, suppressed thyroid function and is also banned in many countries. As my friend Jay says, "When there's doubt, there is no doubt". Here is more on fluoride.........

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Fluoride in Water, Heath Effects and Dangers

NZ - Kapiti residents start anti-fluoridation petition

Kapiti residents start anti-fluoridation petition
September 26, 2009Politics, PressRelease1 comment
Media release – Flouridation-free New Zealand
A group of concerned Kapiti residents have chosen to start a petition to ask the Kapiti District Council to stop the fluoridation of Raumati, Paraparaumu and Waikanae.

“Fluoridation has got to stop. It is harmful to health and a violation of human rights” says Daniela D-Ronberg, spokesperson for the newly-formed Kapiti Fluoridation-free Campaign

“I am particularly worried that we are still allowing this when the American Health Authorities are advising that babies are getting too much fluoride through the normal tap water when making up baby formula. Fluoride cannot be boiled out.” says Daniela D-Ronberg The last two studies[1][2] in New Zealand that looked at dental fluorosis (the first outward sign of fluoride poisoning) showed that 30% of children in fluoridated areas had some form of dental fluorosis as compared with only 15% in non-fluoridated areas.

This petition has come as a result of Tuesday’s film night where residents were able to watch two half hour videos on fluoridation. These videos consisted of an interview with an award winning BBC journalist and an overview of fluoridation by professionals such as doctors, dentists and scientists from around the world.

Daniela D-Ronberg says “All of continental Europe does not allow water fluoridation. Anyone supporting fluoridation needs to watch these two videos before they can consider themselves to be making an informed decision. Otherwise they are coming from a position of ignorance.”

The group intend to circulate both an electronic and a paper-based petition over the next few months which they will present to Council at the end of the year.

USA - A free dental clinic at the Iowa Speedway

NEWTON, Iowa -- A free dental clinic at the Iowa Speedway reached capacity early Saturday, as dentists were unable to take any additional patients.
More than 800 patients were treated Friday during the beginning of the two-day event. Gates opened at 6 a.m. Friday and organizers said they had to cap the line to make sure everyone was treated.
"We're doing fillings, we're doing cleanings, we're removing teeth that are diseased," said Iowa Mission of Mercy chairman Dick Hettinger.
The service was offered free of charge. More than 1,200 volunteer dentists, dental hygienists, and dental assistants treated patients on a first-come, first-served basis.
"I've got my husband coming," said Linda Nissen. "He's getting some teeth pulled now and I'm getting some denture work done."
The work didn't cost money but did require a lot of waiting. Nissen said the line was so long that she had to wait nearly eight hours, passing the time by playing Tetris and talking to her neighbors..................

Iowa is 92% fluoridated:NYSCOF

Saturday, September 26, 2009

UK - Daily Echo - Ignored her? I've met this lady!

Ignored her? I've met this lady!

ANNAPeckham (Letters, September 17 'Ignore us at your peril') alleges I have not responded individually to her letters concerning fluoridation.

It is true that I have written to every constituent who has contacted me on this issue with standard updates as the fluoride debate went on. However I also met personally with Ms Peckham in Parliament to discuss fluoridation. At that meeting I told her and other campaigners that I would be calling on the Strategic Health Authority to put their decision on hold due to the level of public opposition that has been voiced both during and after the SHA's official consultation period, while a proper and independent review of the consultation was carried out.

I absolutely understand that, while the judicial review of the SHA's decision is going on, fluoridation remains an emotive issue for many.

However, I hope you would agree that to say I have 'ignored' Ms Peckham is not a fair or accurate characterisation of my contact with her or other campaigners.


Comment from Anna

He may have met me but it doesn't alter the fact that he has never sent an individual reply to my letters. I have never had a personal reply from him addressing the particular issues I have written to him about - just two photocopied standard letters during the whole campaign, one turning up out of the blue a few months after I originally wrote to him. Therefore I am correct to state that "Alan Whitehead has not responded to any of my letters with an individual reply just a photocopied standard letter that others too have received". It is a fact and something I have thought was a poor way to treat a constituent. By contrast, every other MP in the area has responded individually to their constituents' letters. He is right to say it is an emotive issue but more importantly, because it is an undemocratic decision that affects thousands of local people, it is vital people can address their concerns through their MPS and receive a personal reply.


Fluoridation - Good for teeth, CANCEROUS for your body 1-3

Now I'm convinced about him

« Previous « PreviousNext » Next »View GalleryPublished Date: 25 September 2009
Cousin Lane
WHAT an illogical letter from Dennis Edmondson's (Your say, September 21) supposedly answering Barbara Sutcliffe's question about his contradictory claims that fluoride is both a weed killer and in fruit and vegetables without killing them, but failed to answer her question.
Instead he took us through a long ramble about herds of cattle and a German prisoner of war. Then came cabbages growing "exceedingly well", in manure containing fluoride. Never mind his previous claim that fluoride kills plants. No contradiction there then.
We were then treated to a conspiracy theory of the "Elvis is alive" kind, that path-labs are not allowed by the NHS to test for fluoride to conceal its effects. All very big brother. Finally, he makes the point that dosage has to be proportionate to body mass. Isn't that exactly why one part per million of fluoride is safe?
I have long thought Dennis has lost it. Now I am convinced.
Caroline Barker

Rob Reynolds,25/09/2009 15:49:17
Keep taking the pills sweetie, or is that fluoride?

If you can be "bovvered" to follow this issue, then you will know that the NHS has been covering up for decades. For instance, they have consistently ignored requests to explain why there is a 15% higher level of miscarriages in areas where fluoride is added to our water.

Lastly, the substance is "on" most fruit and veg. not "in" and the strength of the substance is also relevant to its effectiveness. Basic chemistry sweetie, but never mind. Keep brushing with the mind numbing fluoride.
Peter Avinou,25/09/2009 16:41:06

Fair enough Caroline.
You can have as much of this man made cr*p as you can swallow in your lifetime, today, even now, for me - just do not dare to make me take any!
There is only one chance at health and happiness in ones life, why take risks?
Hasn't there been enough suffering with man made drugs and flawed medicines.

Canada - Fluoride debate about to be reopened

Fluoride debate about to be reopened
Updated Fri. Sep. 25 2009 7:02 PM
The fluoride debate is about to be reopened. Councillors in Waterloo have decided to put the issue to residents in the form of a plebiscite during the 2010 municipal election.
The City of Waterloo adopted the idea of putting fluoride in the water back in the 1960's.
Last year, Health Canada asked cities to lower the rates of fluoride in their water because too much can lead to a tooth condition known as flurosis.
Waterloo Councillor Angela Vieth wants to start an edcuational campaign so people can make an informed decision during the plebiscite.
According to one independent researcher, putting fluoride into the water costs the city over $400,000 each year.

Click title to see video

Friday, September 25, 2009

YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS - Dangers of Fluoride 1-2

UK - Anti-fluoride crusader taps up Green Party in bid to become MP

Anti-fluoride crusader taps up Green Party in bid to become MP
24th Sep 2009
A leading anti-fluoride campaigner is standing for Parliament in the next General Election in a move to halt a scheme to add fluoride to Southampton's water supply.
John Spottiswoode has led the fight to stop the controversial plan to add fluoride to the city's water supply since the idea was first mooted.
Now, the chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation wants to turn the vote into the referendum on fluoridation and will challenge government minister Labour MP John Denham for his place in Parliament.
He has been selected as the Green Party candidate for the Southampton Itchen seat at the next general election, which must be held by 3 June 2010.
He will also come up against Southampton City Council deputy leader Royston Smith, who will be standing as the Conservative candidate.
The decision to forge ahead with fluoirdation was made by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) following three months public consultation in Southampton and parts of south-west Hampshire.
This was despite more than seven out of ten of all respondents living in the affected area saying they were against the plans, and an independent phone survey showing more people against the scheme than for it.
It was initially proposed by Southampton City Primary Care Trust in an effort to reduce ‘unacceptable' levels of dental decay among the city's children, and received the backing of Hampshire Primary Care Trust and Southampton City Council.
But last month, a high court judge gave the go-ahead for a court challenge to the plans – and the move was seen by critics of the scheme as a major breakthrough in their campaign.
The legal challenge argues that the SHA failed to have regard for the government's policy that mass fluoridation of drinking water should only go ahead in any particular area if a majority of the local people are in favour.
Mr Spottiswoode said: ‘Clearly, there are many other issues of importance in a general election and the Greens have substantial policies on all of these.
‘However, the big issue in Southampton of putting a known toxin in our water against our will goes to the heart of our democracy and what our politicians should do. What right does anyone have to force anyone else to drink what is widely considered to be a poison?
‘Further, by what right does an unelected health quango have to decide to add fluoride to our drinking water when a massive 72% rejected the idea in the public consultation, despite the authorities running a very biased pro-fluoride campaign?'
MP John Denham, the government's Communities Secretary, has consistently said that he agrees with fluoridation as a principle.
However, earlier this year he changed his stance to say that although he personally believes it is the right thing to do, the scheme should be put on hold until it can be shown that the public agrees with adding fluoride to tap water.


By Byron J. Richards, CCN
September 25, 2009

..............As long as the flagrant abuse of health by doctors, based on various Big Pharma con games, drug scams, and profit-driven procedures is allowed to continue, there is no chance of controlling health care costs in any meaningful way. A brainwashed population that thinks statins should be in the water supply (along with fluoride) is a rather dangerous place for any freedom-loving Americans that remain.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

UK - Andy Burnham to bankrupt NHS with push to fluoridate UK drinking water

Andy Burnham to bankrupt NHS with push to fluoridate UK drinking water
George Glasser
"Let’s press ahead with fluoridation of water supplies, given the clear evidence that it can improve children’s dental health." 12/06/2009 - Health Secretary Andy Burnham’s speech to NHS Confederation Annual Conference.
"The NHS must slash its budget by up to £20billion as part of the Government’s new spending cut plans, Health Secretary Andy Burnham has warned." 19/11/2009 – Daily Mail.
While the NHS titters at the edge of financial oblivion, Health Secretary Andy Burnham (former Vice President of the British Fluoridation Society) is pressing ahead with plans to implement his pet project: The fluoridation of UK drinking water at a possible cost of billions of pounds to financially stressed NHS Trusts.
If you listen to the propaganda, you would believe that fluoridating the drinking water is a simple process – a matter of machine adding drops of fluoride to drinking water. ‘And it only costs pennies per month, per person!’ However, that’s not the case. It’s quite costly to fluoridate drinking water.
In fact, because of the highly corrosive nature of the fluoride added to the water, a separate facility is required because, otherwise, the corrosive fumes from the fluoride will damage other water treatment equipment and they are also a health hazard to the personnel.
Because fluoride is poisonous, fluoridating drinking water requires failsafe instrumentation to assure that the right amount of fluoride is added to the water.
Alarms and monitoring equipment are essential to the process because if there is an accidental overfeed, a whole area population could be poisoned.
Finally, personnel need specialised training to handle the fluoride and maintain the equipment.
All these factors add-up to a very costly endeavor.
So, in spite of what Health Secretary Burnham would have you believe, the tooth fairy doesn’t flitter over the reservoir at night sprinkling fluoride dust into the water.
The fluoridation amendment, 2002 UK Water Bill spelled out guidelines for the SHAs to follow before implementing a fluoridation scheme.
By law, a Strategic Health Authority (SHA) is required, first, to do a fluoridation feasibility study which can cost upwards to £50K+.
Then the SHA has to do a public consultation to see if the people actually want their water fluoridated which can cost from £300K – £1.0M+. However, it’s a foregone conclusion that the decision of the SHA health bosses supersedes public opinion.
After all, they are the self-titled "Health Bosses," and make the final decision on everything regarding your health. So, even if the public says no, the fluoridation scheme will continue as planned – public opinion is irrelevant.
Then if someone contests the consultation process on valid legal grounds, as in South Hampshire, you can add another £600K or more on top of that for legal fees and court costs.
Next, the SHA has to work out legal agreements with the water companies. (How much do corporate lawyers cost per hour and how long will they drag out the process so they can get a generous cut of the action from the public purse?)
At that point, the water company comes into the picture – they’re responsible for designing and building the fluoridation facilities. They’re not altruistic and do not have the public interest at heart. They’re ‘for profit private companies.’ One can be assured they will make substantial profit on every aspect of the facility designs and engineering.
Next, we have the construction which the water companies will oversee and hire subcontractors to construct the facilities. Of course, the water company will take a cut of the action off the top of construction costs and charge administration fees on top of that.
All this costs money, and where does the money come from?
The funding, of course, comes out of the SHA budget – not the tooth fairy like Health Secretary Burnham’s PR people would have you believe. The government only offers a £15K fluoridation grant, which doesn’t even cover the feasibility study costs.
Not only is the SHA responsible for paying the start-up cost and all the legal fees, but they are also responsible for funding the ongoing manning and maintenance of the facilities and cost of fluoride to put in the water (the water company will at least double the cost on the fluoride).
From the time the SHA starts the bureaucracy in motion to implement a fluoridation scheme to its hypothetical completion; we are probably looking at five years with ever-increasing costs due to inflation.
A feasibility study done to fluoridate Manchester a few years ago indicated that the start-up costs would be £35M in 2006 - £102M in 2007 - £210M in 2009.
They estimated that it would take another £5M per year for chemicals, manning, and maintenance, which again will come out of the Manchester SHA budget while they are simultaneously cutting costs in order to survive.
In spite of facing bankruptcy, the Manchester health bosses push onward and keep spending even more money on their suicidal plan to fluoridate the drinking water.
As part of a cost cutting measure to save £44K a year in 2006, Manchester SHA health bosses told NHS hospital nurses that they had to supply their own milk for tea – if they got caught using hospital milk, they would be subject to disciplinary action and possible sacking.
Meanwhile, the Manchester SHA is closing hospitals, axing essential services, and laying-off staff, but the health bosses can still find £210M in the budget to fluoridate the city’s drinking water.
The one thing you can be sure of with any government project is that you can safely add 500% onto the estimated cost. This is because the private sector knows that once they have got the contracts, they can milk dim-witted bureaucrats and sycophant politicians for any amount of public funds.
Consequently, who knows how much it will cost to fluoridate Manchester’s drinking water? The actual cost of fluoridating Manchester could be a billion pounds by the time they’re finished because the cost seems to double with every passing year.
Now, how realistic are fluoridation schemes? Well, not very.
First of all, it will take upwards to five years to implement a regional fluoridation scheme and cost hundreds of millions of pounds, if not billions.
Then offering the promoters the benefit of the doubt, and agreeing the fluoridation will "Dramatically reduce tooth decay in children," it will take another five years to see any significant improvement in dental health among the population.
So, the bottom-line is that it will take at least ten years or more before any improvement in dental health is seen - that is, if fluoridation actually worked.
Does that do anything to improve children’s dental health in the short term?
It’s very doubtful unless you believe in the tooth fairy like the SHA health bosses and Health Secretary Andy Burnham.
Who really stands to profit from fluoridation?
The water companies because they will take a cut of the action off the top and charge administration fees for every aspect of the operation; and subsequently, transforming fluoridation into a long-term profit generator for the company.
Next and most important, who are the losers?
Well, it’s the usual losers in any ill-fated government health scheme: The unquestioning public who are dependent on the NHS for their health care.
Why is the UK public the loser in the fluoridation game?
Well, it’s because Health Secretary Burnham’s ambitious scheme to fluoridate the UK is financed by the Strategic Health Authorities who are always in a state of financial crises.
What does this mean to a nation that depends on the NHS for its health care?
Further cutting of essential services?
Shutting down more hospitals, birthing centres, cancer facilities, and causality units?
Sacking even more nurses and essential personnel to balance the budget? (137 thousand NHS personnel are to be losing their jobs in the next five years.)
Denying even more people access to life-saving drugs and treatments?
Putting even more people into quality of service postcode lotteries?
So, what's next from Health Secretary Burnham; DIY organ transplants as a means to cut NHS spending so he can see his pet project implemented?
Burnham is now talking about further draconian cutbacks in NHS funding - £20billion, but he still seems to have the money to pour into fluoridation schemes, even at the cost of bankrupting the NHS.

Ontario, Canada - Oshawa kids decaying in oral health

Oshawa kids decaying in oral health
Oshawa elementary schools are the most at risk for tooth decay and cavities, says Dr.
Patricia Abbey, the director of the oral health division for the Durham Region Health Department.'Oshawa has the highest rate of tooth decay and cavities,' she says.'This can be an excellent indicator of poverty.' The study looked at kindergarten students from the past school year in various schools across the region. The data was then charted and separated by municipalities to determine the most high-risk schools and areas.'You can see a large grouping of red dots here,' says Fangli Xie, an epidemiologist with the health department as she points to the south end of Oshawa.

Oshawa, Ontario, Canada is fluoridated: NYSCOF

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

USA - Indiana is 95% fluoridated:NYSCOF

...........Pediatric dentist Keith Roberts ran a booth at which he said he strove to help educate parents about the importance of dental care at an early age.

Photos lay on the table showing the differences between a healthy one-year-old’s mouth and one whose upper teeth were decayed because of juice.

“I’m tired of seeing kids have tooth decay,” Roberts said.............

UK - Daily Echo - Children's teeth just used as an excuse

Children's teeth just used as an excuse
REGARDING the fluoride debate, if this toxic waste goes into our water supply, then we will all know that this is definitely not a democratic country any more.
How could it be, with the majority of people against this crazy scheme?
We have enough problems in the world without our water supply being tainted as well.
Whatever the reason for the SHA wanting to put it in is beyond me, -because it sure is not for children's teeth - that, in my opinion, is just a ploy
SHA, can you tell us the real reason, please?
I would think that if they were so concerned about children's teeth they would drop this idea and think of something that is more practical, like good old fashioned cod liver oil and milk, like what we used to have in schools for good teeth and bones.
Can the SHA comment on why we don't have those two things in schools now?
So please SHA stop using children's teeth as an excuse to medicate us all.
The people of Southampton and surrounding areas have made it very clear that they don't want a toxic fluoride and a lot of these people have young children who also don't want it.
When are you going to listen? What does it take to get through? We all pay our water rates at the moment for water that we accept to be fit enough to drink.
I and others will not accept a toxic waste fluoride!
Name and address supplied.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Water Fluoridation by George Glasser

Click top right to toggle to full screen
You can increase the font size as well on full screen

Water Fluoridation

Canada - Fluoride: one of our great public health victories or toxic waste?

Fluoride: one of our great public health victories or toxic waste?
Health Canada wants the levels in our tap water cut. Now the fight to ban it outright is back on.
by Katie Engelhart and Cathy Gulli on Monday, September 21, 2009 10:45am - 23 Comments
When it comes to fluoride in his community’s water, the mayor of Lambton Shores, Ont., Gord Minielly, has one thing to say: “Better out than in.” But he’s not the only one calling the shots. On the other side of the debate is Mike Bradley, mayor of nearby Sarnia, who is pro-fluoridation. The two communities share a water supply—which is fluoridated. And that’s where things get messy. “It’s been an issue every year since it was put in in the ’60s,” Bradley says.

Fluoride debates are old hat here. Sarnia was involved in Canada’s first-ever water fluoridation experiment. In 1945, the city paired with Brantford, Ont., to study the effects of adding fluoride to drinking water. Sarnia was the non-fluoridated control city for 11 years. When Brantford’s tooth decay rates dropped, Sarnia began fluoridating too. Today, Bradley says it’s time to “put it to the public”—to settle the issue with a referendum on water fluoridation, which would coincide with municipal elections in 2010. He’s not the only civic leader making that call.

More than 50 years after fluoride found its way into Canadian taps, the controversy has been resurrected. Battle lines are hardening as anti-fluoridation groups swell in size and municipal elections loom. What’s more, in some cities fluoridation equipment is on its last legs. As it breaks down, investment demands test local commitment to fluoride. In Gander, Nfld., the issue of funds for machinery inspired a paralyzing local confrontation that led to a two-year halt on fluoridation.

Quebec City voted last year to shut off its fluoride taps, while Dorval, Que., reintroduced fluoridated water after a five-year hiatus. Edmonton opted in July to lower fluoride levels; months earlier, Calgary rejected a motion to do away with the additive. In British Columbia, anti-fluoride activists in Prince George are ramping up their attacks, following the lead of Vancouver, which eschews fluoridation. And in Ontario, Waterloo has set the stage for a plebiscite in 2010 that threatens to make fluoride a high-priority election issue.

The issue was ignited last year, when Health Canada published a report from an expert panel that advised the federal agency to lower recommended fluoride levels—again. Falling targets have been a national trend. In the last 40 years, Health Canada’s optimum fluoride level has been almost halved. That’s partly because we are exposed to more fluoride now—in what we eat and drink, for example—than when water fluoridation was first conceived..........................

UK - Fluoride debate made simple

Fluoride debate made simple
Date: 21 September 2009
Duck Hill
Pecket Well,
IN response to the letter by David Sutherland (Your say September 7) and the previous letter by Barbara Sutcliffe (August 27, "Dennis is boxed into a corner").
I have previously answered Barbara Sutcliffe's questions adequately, particularly by quoting an article in the Farmers Guardian in 1982 concerning the fluoride poisoning of an entire herd of cattle at Rawmarsh near Sheffield resulting from a high fluoride intake derived from both hay meadows and pastures. For some reason best known to the editor, that passage was deleted from my letter.
At the time of recording a conversation with the farmer, Reg Ellis, a former German prisoner of war who had settled in Britain joined in the conversation and related how a neighbouring farmer who like Reg Ellis had accepted sewage sludge containing a high fluoride content from the Old Yorkshire Water Authority to use as what he had considered to be organic manure, was directed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to destroy his entire crop of cabbage which had grown exceedingly well.
Reg Ellis had the sludge delivered in September 1976 and by 1977 his entire herd of cattle had either died or had to be destroyed. The WYA settled his claim out of court and Mr Ellis would not reveal the amount but Farmers Guardian believed it to be in excess of £20,000 and Mr Ellis was so pleased with the settlement he told me and my two companions that they could poison his cattle again anytime.
The media has been putting out misinformation for decades, quoting the so-called experts of health authorities who simplistically and repeatedly claim that "fluoride is safe and effective as one part per million."
Donald Sutherland asks why people living in Northumberland and other areas where fluoride occurs naturally and in regions where it has been artificially fluoridated for 40 years have not been affected with the ailments that I have mentioned?
The simple answer to that question is that they have, but the Health Service has been attempting to conceal it by instructing pathology labs not to examine urine, blood or other biological specimens for fluoride levels, particularly in cases of paediatric illness or sudden infant deaths.
Let me make this simple for both these ill-informed advocates of fluoride to understand. In the case of most, if not all prescription drugs, good doctors and vets do not prescribe the same amount of drug for a baby as they might for an adult, due to the much lower body weight.
Likewise a vet would not administer the same amount of an anthelmintic to worm a corgi as he would to a St Bernard or Newfoundland, otherwise he would kill the dog as well as the worms.
Dennis Edmondson

UK - Daily Echo - Fluoride: 'No' really does mean 'no'

Fluoride: 'No' really does mean 'no'
CONGRATULATIONS to Sue Dumacesq. for her 'In my View' on (August 19).
I would like first to say that I have a letter from the Department of Health which states 'that the implementation of fluoridation in this area can only go ahead with the approval of the local population'. Since when has opposition of 70 per cent been seen as approval?
No matter how the SHA juggles the figures it is still a resounding NO to fluoride in our water supply. The SHA seems to have a hidden agenda and a dogged determination to go ahead and it must be stopped.
If people think their children's teeth are being protected with this noxious substance, they will not mend their ways. The sugary substances and poor oral hygiene will continue, creating the obese adults of the future. Parents must be made responsible for their own children's welfare and not involve the £14m it will cost the taxpayer to put fluoride in the water supply.
The Department of Health admits it may damage some people's health and also cause fluorosis in teeth, which they describe as cosmetic. Not to those affected I expect.
MRS E M CLEMENTS, Southampton.

UK - Daily Echo -Ethics of fluoride

Click to enlarge to read, unable to scan properly

Monday, September 21, 2009

Australia - Mother's warning

Kathy Grinter - left - with a picture of Jason.
Mother's warning against fluoride
A FAMILY who lost their son and brother to fluoride poisoning has grave concerns about the State Government's decision to add fluoride to Queensland's water supplies. For the past 37 years, Kathy Grinter has fought to have her son's death recognised as a death from fluoride poisoning in an effort to warn the public of the possible dangers. She told The Gympie Times all her efforts so far had been shut down.
No inquest was held into the death of one and a-half year-old toddler Jason Paul Burton however, in black and white on the baby's death certificate and the post mortem examination report, it clearly states the cause of Jason's death was fluoride poisoning. "I have hit brick walls at every turn trying to bring what happened to my son out in the open," Ms Grinter said. "All I want is my son's death acknowledged and recorded as a death from fluoride poisoning so at least people can make their own decisions about this poison, based on facts and not lies, deceit and cover-ups."
Ms Grinter has been told by the Dental Association and various government departments that all the legal documents she has are fraudulent and her son's death could not possibly have been caused by fluoride. She's been called a liar and told to stop talking rubbish, but Mrs Grinter says she won't be bullied by the government or "so-called experts" into giving up.
"I can't believe I am the only person in Australia to have a bad experience with this toxic substance. Every other country in the world where fluoride has been added to the water has statistics on deaths or illnesses caused by fluoride. Don't you think it's strange Australia doesn't?" Ms Grinter said all the documents on her
son's death were handed to Premier Anna Bligh by the anti-fl uoride lobby. The reports state the child had been given half a fluoride tablet a day as instructed by a doctor and on the day of his death he had found the bottle and swallowed an unidentified quantity of fluoride tablets. Four tablets were found in Jason's stomach and doctors said his symptoms were consistent to fluoride intoxication. A coroner's report stated the most
probable cause of death was fluoride ingestion because of the history of fluoride overdose and the positive blood fluoride level, however the Department of Justice in Queensland has said they never made such a statement.
Jason's sister Roschelle Burton moved from Brisbane to Imbil two years ago for "a cleaner environment" and worries that her family will be affected when fluoride is added to Gympie regional water supplies. Ms Burton said she has never given her children fluoride and her eldest, 13, doesn't have a filling in his mouth.
"All we are against is forced medication. People should have a choice and it should be an informed one.
"Why should I have to spend $1500 on a special filter to remove the fluoride? At least with immunisations they tell the public there's a risk involved." All I want is my son's death acknowledged

Don't rinse away fluoride-enhanced toothpaste

Don't rinse away fluoride-enhanced toothpaste
Health News
Sep 21, 2009, 1:08 GMT
Frankfurt - The protection given by fluoride-enriched toothpaste works better if it isn't rinsed away after brushing, reports a German oral health organization.
Keeping the foamy fluoride-rich toothpaste in one's mouth after brushing dramatically boosts the protection from brushing, reports the German Informational Circle on Oral Hygiene and Nutritional Behaviour (IME). Therefore, spit after brushing, but don't rinse.
The best dental protection comes from thoroughly brushing three times a day - after every main meal, or at least after breakfast and before bedtime.

Seems doubtful advice. How much fluoride will you ingest?

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Australia - OPINION: Citizens are being misled

Dr Paul Connett, PhD, (pictured) has researched the fluoride issue for 13 years and is currently the executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (http://www.fluoridealert.org/).
Latest News from Australia
OPINION: Citizens are being misled
THE 20 signatories to this piece are among the 2600 professionals who are calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide ( www.FluorideAlert.org )
We would like to respond to a letter signed by Dr John Carnie, Chief Health Officer, Department of Human Services, Victoria, and others. ( Experts back fluoride , Sunraysia Daily, Wednesday, September 2).
In Dr Carnie’s letter, we see very familiar tactics. Instead of marshaling scientific evidence to support their case, they rely on endorsements and tame reviews by bodies that sadly toe the government’s line on fluoridation.
Dr Carnie’s notion of ‘consulting’ with the community is to mail everyone a one-sided brochure.
His agency finds it easier to answer its own questions than those of its opponents. Here are eight questions we challenge Dr Carnie to answer.
1) Why is the level of fluoride so low in mothers milk (0.004 ppm)?
2) Is Dr Carnie not concerned that a bottle-fed baby in a fluoridated community will get 250 times more fluoride than nature intended?
3) Why does Dr Carnie ignore the World Health Organization’s (WHO) advice that before fluoridation is begun an estimate be made of the total fluoride dose children are already receiving?
4) How can Dr Carnie maintain that fluoridation is ‘safe’ when no randomized clinical trials have been performed to demonstrate the safety (or effectiveness) of ingesting fluoride
5) How can Dr Carnie claim that no one has been harmed by fluoridation when virtually no health studies have been conducted in fluoridated communities in Australia?
6) Why has there been no response in 18 years to two recommendations made in 1991 by the NHMRC: a) that fluoride bone levels be monitored and b) that the numerous reports of people claiming to be sensitive to fluoride be investigated in a scientific manner?
7) How can Dr Carnie explain that, according to WHO data, there is practically no difference in tooth decay in 12-year olds, between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries ( http://www.FluorideAlert.org/who-dmft.htm )?
8) Why does Dr Carnie continue to perpetuate the elementary confusion between concentration and dose of fluoride? While engineers can control the concentration of the fluoride added to the water supply no one can control the dose people get each day. This will depend on how much water they drink and how much fluoride they get from other sources.
We see Dr Carnie exploit this confusion when he claims that IQ studies done in China dealt with “children’s exposure in ‘high fluoride areas’ where fluoride levels are substantially higher than the levels used in Australia.”
This is not correct.
In one of 23 studies published on this matter (see http://www.FluorideAlert.org/brain ) the authors found a 5-10 point IQ difference in children between a village with fluoride levels in well-water below 0.7 ppm and another village with well-water between 2.5 and 4.5 ppm.
The authors estimated that IQ would begin to be lowered at 1.9 ppm.
A child drinking two liters of water at 1 ppm would get a higher dose of fluoride than a child drinking one liter at 1.9 ppm, thus it is preposterous to claim that this study is irrelevant to Australia.
There is no adequate margin of safety to protect Australian children from this.
Not only may children be put at risk drinking fluoridated water, fluoride toxicity was experienced by adult patients of a practitioner signing this article (Robertson) after Melbourne was fluoridated over thirty years ago and documented in several other fluoridated countries (see the book Fluoride Fatigue authored by another signer, Spittle).
Side effects from fluoridated water have similarly been occurring to Geelong people after their water was recently fluoridated.
Dr Carnie has been made aware of this situation but has done nothing about it.
In 2006, the US National Research Council published a 507-page review entitled Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of EPA’s Standards .
The NRC authors, including three of those signing this article concluded that fluoride exposure was associated with damage to teeth, bone, the brain, the endocrine system and might also cause bone cancer.
The panel recommended that the US drinking water standard for fluoride (4 ppm) be lowered.
After 3 years the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not done this.
However, former EPA risk assessment expert Dr Robert Carton, has concluded that there is no adequate margin of safety between the doses found to cause harm reported in the NRC review and the doses some people receive in fluoridated communities (Carton, 2006).
The NHMRC (2007) authors exploit the same “confusion between concentration and dose” when they cavalierly dismissed the NRC’s findings in one sentence:
“The NAS report refers to the adverse health effects from fluoride at 2-4 mg/L, the reader is alerted to the fact that fluoridation of Australia’s drinking water occurs in the range of 0.6 to 1.1. mg/L.”
To claim that the findings of the NRC review are irrelevant to Australia is irresponsible.
The NRC panel provides an exposure analysis that makes it clear that some people living in artificially fluoridated communities (at the same levels used in Australia) are likely to be exceeding the EPA’s reference dose for injury from fluoride (RfD) of 0.06 mg/kg bodyweight per day.
These include bottle-fed babies.
A 4 kg infant that drinks 1 liter of fluoridated tap water formula per day receives a dose of 0.25 mg/kg/day or over four times higher than the EPA’s reference dose for injury.
Dr Carnie is wrong to assert that the American Dental Association’s advice to parents not to use artificially fluoridated water (to make up baby formula) was restricted to water containing high natural levels of fluoride. The ADA advice states:
“If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents or caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride.” ( http://www.fluoridealert.org/scher/ada.egram-2006.pdf )
For some inexplicable reason Dr Carnie and other fluoridation promoters appear more intent on protecting this outdated practice than protecting the health of the Australian people.
He and his colleagues can only get away with this because they have the power and prestige of their respective organizations. But opinions on this issue which are unsupported by scientific data cannot be taken seriously. Hopefully, citizens in Mildura, and throughout Australia will have the fortitude to challenge Dr Carnie and other fluoridation promoters to defend the practice scientifically or abandon it forthwith.
Meanwhile, we marvel that Dr Carnie is prepared to force this measure on communities without a vote being taken.
This would be unacceptable even if the proponents had presented sound scientific evidence for both its effectiveness and safety, but having done neither, their arrogance is breathtaking.
Albert W. Burgstahler, PhD, co-author Fluoridation the Great Dilemma (1978)
Paul Connett, PhD, director, Fluoride Action Network, USA
Doug Everingham, MD, former Australian Minister of Health
Andrew Harms, BDS, former President, Australian Dental Association (SA branch)
J. William Hirzy, PhD, former research scientist at the US Environmental Protection Agency
Professor C V Howard, MB, ChB, PhD, FRCPath, past President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, Northern Ireland
Robert Isaacson, PhD, panel member for the National Research Council report (NRC, 2006), USA
David Kennedy, DDS, past President of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, USA
Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD, past President of the Canadian Association for Dental Research and panel member for the National Research Council report,Canada
David McRae BSc, co-ordinator, Barwon Freedom from Fluoridation, Geelong
H. S. Micklem, D. Phil, retired immunologist, Edinburgh, Scotland
Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH, Aesthetic Dentistry, USA
Gilles Parent, ND.A , Co-author of La fluoration: autopsie d'une error scientifique (2005), Canada
Philip Robertson, BHSc, ND, Carmoora Clinic, Geelong
Jean Ryan, BHSc, Brisbane
Bruce Spittle, MB, ChB, DPM, FRANZCP, Author of Fluoride Fatigue (2008)
Daniel G. Stockin, MPH, senior Operations Officer, Lillie Center, USA
Kathleen M. Thiessen, PhD, panel member for the National Research Council report, USA

Dentists: Reduced Medicaid payments threatening practices

Medicaid » Budget error must be fixed, they say.
By Lisa Rosetta
The Salt Lake Tribune
The toll on children
On Wednesday, Horgesheimer said, he saw several children under the age of four who had more than 10 cavities. Not old enough, or cooperative enough, to be treated in a chair, they'll have to be sedated in an operating room, where he'll perform their extractions, fillings, root canals or crowns.

One lethargic 7-year-old girl on Medicaid showed up at his office that same day with a gnawing pain and fever. A serious tooth infection had spread to her cheek and was starting to cause her eyelid to close.
"Had I not taken out that tooth today," the dentist said, "she would have been up at the hospital seeking treatment from the ER."
Horgesheimer wishes this child were a rarity. She's not.
An attending dentist at Primary Children's Medical Center, Horgesheimer said 20 to 30 children come in every week with serious, yet preventable, dental infections. What could have been avoided with good oral hygiene, routine check-ups and timely care is instead treated with intravenous antibiotics at many times more the cost.

Most of these children are in low-income families and on Medicaid, which this year has seen its enrollment swell to an all-time high. Strapped for cash, it has dropped dental coverage for aged, blind and disabled Utahns for fiscal 2010, leaving an estimated 40,000 people to rely on already overburdened nonprofit organizations and safety net clinics for care.

Those who are left -- pregnant women and children -- have struggled to get appointments. Even before dentists' pay was gouged in May, only one in 11 Utah dentists were taking new Medicaid patients, Christensen said.

Trace Lund, a pediatric dentist who has practiced in Provo and Price for the past decade, sees children from 12 counties who can't get appointments closer to home.
"Many of these people drive considerable lengths to find us because we can help their children," he wrote in a letter to legislators. "That is a humbling notion that people will drive four hours to get to someone who can take care of a hurting child."

Salt Lake City (Utah) is fluoridated:NYSCOF

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Poison in our water

Documentary By Jay Syrene on the harmful practice of water fluoridation. email me at: jay@brothersofliberty.org

This documentary walks through the tainted and manipulated studies that were conducted on behalf of industry to show fluorides supposed safety. These studies, much like we've seen with cigarettes, DDT, lead and asbestos were paid for by industry in order to turn a profit and avoid lawsuits.

After explaining why so many doctors and dentists wrongly support water fluoridation we get into how incredibly harmful fluoride is. This documentary details through interviews with leading scientists, toxicologists, neuro-scientists, doctors and dentists the harm fluoride has on infants as a developmental toxin, on bones on teeth, to people with weakened kidneys and on the thyroid and pineal glands.

Later it is revealed that fluoride posses little to no systemic benefit to our teeth.

Thanks to the Fluoride Action Network for the use of some of their interviews fluoridealert.com

This documentary will air occasionally on channel 23 in Manchester NH as part of the weekly series Brothers of Liberty, which is on every Monday night at 9:30

This documentary was made for air on television in New Hampshire, so the state and some cities are mentioned specifically. I hope however that this will be used as a tool worldwide to stop the terrible practice of water fluoridation.


Secrets Your Dentist Doesn't Want You To Know

Secrets Your Dentist Doesn't Want You To Know
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
September 19 2009 | 2,223 views
Here are the secrets your dentist may not want you to know -- but you need to know to get the best care possible:

USA - City brushes aside fluoride challenge

City brushes aside fluoride challenge
Posted: Friday, Sep 18, 2009 - 10:06:26 am PDT
Staff writer
SANDPOINT — Much to the chagrin of the 20-plus anti-fluoride advocates in attendance, the City Council decided Wednesday night to continue its controversial water fluoridation program.

After more than an hour of testimony both extolling and denouncing the practice, the council was unable to reach consensus on the issue. When all the votes were tallied, three members were in favor of removing fluoride and three wanted to maintain the ordinance. Since taking office nearly two years ago, Mayor Gretchen Hellar has been the deciding factor on several controversial issues, and she was once again forced to make a tie-breaking vote Wednesday night.

“I decided if I was faced with this, and I am, I would vote not to remove fluoride from the water, and to commit to those people who are anti-fluoride to work with the county clerk to come up with a proper referendum or initiative to force us to actually vote on the matter,” Hellar said.

Hellar joined council members Carrie Logan, John Reuter and Helen Newton in voting to continue the ordinance, with council members John O’Hara, Michael Boge and Stephen Snedden dissenting.

Prior to the vote, the council heard impassioned pleas from citizens representing both sides of the issue. Members of the Pend Oreille Water Keepers, Sandpoint Mothers for Safe Water and North Idaho Safe Drinking Water, among others, asked the council to abandon its nearly 60-year old fluoridation program.

Some speakers cited health reasons for dissolving the ordinance, while others said they simply wanted to choose what enters their bodies. Harold Hilton of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water warned council members that they could face consequences if they allowed the program to continue.

“Since the City Council has been informed at previous meetings of the potential dangers of mass fluoridation of the population through city treatment, each and every City Council member is risking personal liability for any harm that may come to any citizen as a result of drinking the fluoride in the city water,” Hilton said.

The majority of those attending the meeting were against fluoridation, but seven residents — including multiple dentists — came out in favor of the ordinance. Sandpoint’s Pierre Bordenave took exception to fluoride being referred to as medication and asked the council to take its cues from medical professionals.

“Enough with the ‘medicating our citizens’ stuff,” Bordenave said. “The FDA does not define, nor regulate, the mineral fluoride as a drug because it is not a drug. You would need 800 percent more fluoride than what’s in our water to exceed EPA limits, and even that would not be defined as toxic.”

Three council members heard enough evidence to convince them to abandon the practice, but Newton was unmoved by the arguments against fluoride.

“Regarding forced medication and personal choice issues, I believe they are just that, personal choices,” she said. “Don’t drink the water, don’t cook with it, don’t bathe in it if you believe that it’s harmful. There are innumerable other water sources. And the ultimate choice, I suppose, is not to live in a location that fluoridates its water.”

USA - Student smiles are focus in SoCal schools

"In 2005, the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services released the Show Me Your Smile study, highlighting dental health in Missouri's youth. It found that 55 percent of third grade children had cavities and 27 percent of those children needed treatment for that."

Local dentists refused Medicaid patients so "She settled on ReachOut Healthcare America, the Phoenix-based company focused on serving schools where a large number of children are economically disadvantaged. Using a dentist based out of Kansas City, it filled 27 elementary students' cavities in two days at South Callaway."

Missouri is 80% fluoridated:NYSCOF

Friday, September 18, 2009

Fluoride Alert News letter

FAN Bulletin 1092: Professionals expose Victorian government deception
September 18, 2009
Two bits of good news.
First, on September 15 the citizens in Wakefield, Nebraska, voted down fluoridation by a margin of over 10 to 1.
Second, for once an Australian newspaper (Sunraysia Daily) has given the opportunity for a professional response to the wildly inaccurate claims (and outright deception) of Australian health authorities. Dr. James Carnie, the chief health officer for Victoria, and a bunch of yes men Carnie gathered from a few health groups, produced some of their usual spin in an effort to convince the citizens of the small town of Mildura that there is nothing wrong with fluoridation. In the process, they grossly misrepresented the NRC review findings, the ADA advice on not using fluoridated water in bottle feeding and the Chinese IQ studies. Typically they hid behind the review by the Australian NHMRC in 2007 which dismissed the relevance of the landmark review by the US NRC and then produced what was little more than a rehash of the York Review, but without the caveats (see Trevor Sheldon's letter to the House of Lords, www.fluoridealert.org/sheldon.htm ).

Carnie's long letter (Mildura: Experts Back Fluoride) was printed in the local paper (Sunraysia Daily) on September 2- replete with photos.

Citizens won the right to get a professional response to Carnie's spin piece. The paper agreed. That's when FAN got involved, we were able to get twenty professionals to sign onto a letter to the paper. Actually this was more than a sign on: the letter went through several iterations. The signers included five people from Australia, including the former federal health minister (Doug Everingham) and the former president of the South Australia branch of the Australian Dental Association (Andrew Harms) and fifteen doctors, dentists and scientists from the US, Canada, UK and New Zealand, including three NRC panel members ( Bob Isaacson, Hardy Limeback and Kathleen Thiessen), the editor of the journal Fluoride (Albert Burgstahler), the author of the book Fluoride Fatique (Bruce Spittle), the past president of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment (Vyvyan Howard) and former US EPA scientist, William Hirzy.

The letter was printed today (Sept 18, 2009) as a FULL page op-ed piece.

The text of the letter is printed in full below along with the names of all nineteen signatories. Unfortunately, for some unexplained reason, Dr. James Beck's (MD, PhD, Retired medical biophysicist, Canada) name was not on the published article, although he headed the list.

Local citizens will be making photocopies of this full page and will be distributing it throughout Victoria and other hot spots in Australia fighting to help counter the incredible arrogance of health officials who are prepared to force this practice on citizens even though they lack a serious understanding of the literature on fluoride's dangers, and without giving a citizens a chance to vote on the measure!

The last sentence of our letter reads: "We marvel that Dr. Carnie is prepared to force this measure on communities without a vote being taken by the citizens. This would be unacceptable even if the proponents had presented sound scientific evidence for both its effectiveness and safety, but having done neither, their arrogance is breathtaking."

Paul Connett

Citizens Misled on Fluoride
Sunraysia Daily, September 18

USA - Fluoride debate touches down in Sandpoint

Fluoride debate touches down in Sandpoint
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 12:25 AM
SANDPOINT, ID. - The battle lines have been drawn in Sandpoint over fluoride. For years the city has fluoridated the water supply. One group of people want that to stop while members of the dental community says absolutely not.

Like many communities across the country Sandpoint has been putting fluoride in its water since the early 1950s to fight tooth decay.

"We add one part per million of fluoride which is the recommended level from the EPA and Centers for Disease Control," Kody Van Dyke with Sandpoint Public Works said.

However now the Bonner County Republican Central Committee says the chemical is harmful and unnecessary. The committee along with other members of the community are asking Sandpoint's city council to put an end to Ordinance 1034, a city law requiring water to be fluoridated. The city's public works department says fluoride is added to the public water supply 8 months out of the year.

The Republican Central Committee argues that fluoride doesn't prevent tooth decay and some opponents say fluoride treatment shouldn't be forced on those who don't want it.

"I don't like it at all," Del Hathaway said. "I never like it since they instigated the whole thing especially when i learned it was a derivative of the aluminum process and its a deadly poison."

In the opposite camp is the dental community, armed with a letter signed by 19 local dentists that claims that fluoride is beneficial to healthy teeth growth especially in kids and that "Sandpoint dentists unanimously support municipal fluoridation."

"As a school nurse for sometime I observed lots of kids that had lots of cavities and part of it is they can't get to the dentist and get the fluoride treatments. I think it should be in the water," fluoride supporter Dana Williams said.

The Sandpoint City Council will take up the fluoride debate at a meeting at 5:30 p.m. Wednesday.

USA - In fluoridation-mandated Illinois

"Fifty-five percent of the third-graders have had dental caries experience that includes treated and untreated cavities. Of the 55 percent with caries experience, 30percent have untreated cavities (cavitated lesions). Four percent of the children with untreated cavities need urgent dental treatment, indicating pain, abscess or severe decay. The numbers are higher among lower income, rural, and minority populations."

In fluoridation-mandated Illinois: NYSCOF

Thursday, September 17, 2009

UK - Daily Echo - Why should I be forced to drink this poison?

Why should I be forced to drink this poison?
I FIND the attitude of these 'health chiefs' beyond my comprehension.
These public servants are being paid to serve the public, not become its masters.
Why should I be forced to drink a poison which I don't want?
Fluoride is supposed to improve dental health. We have a dental service to take care of our teeth - or at least we did have until a certain prime minister decided we should let our teeth rot if we couldn't afford exorbitant fees. Is fluoridation going to replace our NHS Dental Service or 'unrot' our decaying teeth?
Perhaps it will place a lot of very wealthy dentists on Jobseekers Allowance, have these people who intend to force us to drink fluorid-ed water considered what a wasteful decision this will be. We will flush about nine litres of treated water down the toilet, as well as another nine or ten litres every time we wash or do the washing up - more if we have a dishwasher - a further 20 litres or so down the plughole for a shower, and at least a hundred litres flushed away for a bath.
Then there is of course watering our gardens. Which 'expert' has told these health chiefs that all our flowers and vegetables will benefit from yet another chemical addition to our household water supply, some of which already only prosper on rainwater?
I also suspect the motives involved. There is such an outcry against fluoridation, that I foresee the biggest boost to the bottled water industry ever - is this a hidden agenda?
Finally, this country spent six years and lost a lot of citizens fighting overseas dictatorship, why should we now have a homegrown one?
Let those who prefer drinking fluoridated water, buy it in the form of toothpaste or some form of bottled water, and let the rest of us -the majority - carry on with what we have had for the last 100 years or so, clean water.
L T N COWNE, Hythe.

UK - Daily Echo - Comments from the website

HE has led the fight to stop fluoride being added to Hampshire's water. Now John Spottiswoode is to challenge Government minister John Denham for his place in Parliament. Mr Spottiswoode, chairman of Hampshire Against fluoridation, wants to turn the vote into the referendum on fluoridation that has so far been denied to the 200,000 people in and around the city affected by it.
He has been selected as the Green Party candidate for the Southampton Itchen seat at the next general election, which must be held by June 3 next year,

Here are a few of your comments taken from the Daily Echo website:
Southy, Redbrldge, says...
He would do better going for Southampton North and Romsey. Here he might get a chance to get elected than take on Itchen. If the Greens stand in Itchen or Test all they will do is let the Torys win, and the Torys will not take any notice of the Green Party, they treat them as a joke.

jwillie6, Lafayette, LA, USA says-
Citizens have wised up to this poison dumped in our water systems. That is why fluoridation loses in 80 per cent of the elections held.
There is no other example of forced medication, where people must take a drug against their will every day of their lives. Even if it were of value to children's teeth, 50 per cent of all you take accumu-jated in the bones,the thyroid, the brain and the joints. Research shows the result for childen is a fivefold increase in bone cancer, lowered IQ, and enamel damage. In the elderly other cancers, thyroid destruction and boken hips due to brittle bones.
Brite Spark, Stubbington, says...
I would much rather have a nuclear submarine in Southampton's Waters than fluoride, the former is much the safer option.

UK -Daily Echo - Ignore us your peril

Ignore us at your peril!
WITH the fiuoridation issue refusing to go away and other parts of the country reconsidering plans to fluoridate water supplies in the light of the judicial review, isn't it about time health chiefs had a major rethink about this overwhelmingly unpopular scheme?
How much more NHS money will be wasted in the ensuing court case that could instead be put to good use in funding more targeted ways of tackling tooth decay?
Unfortunately, the whole issue has become a battle involving health authorities, politicians, dentists, water companies, city councillors and various other "authorities" all of whom appear to be unconcerned that there is simply no local support for the scheme as shown by the 72 per cent of respondents who took the trouble to inform the SHA that they do not want fluoridated water and the 15,300 people who signed a Downing Street petition.
Clearly, many local people have thought deeply about this issue and have realised that adding this chemical | to the water is not something they want j for themselves or their city. The exercise of choice is an important aspect of taking care of our own health and well-being and of making people feel that they are part of an inclusive society that listens to its members through its local and national democratic systems.
Do we want a society where people feel it is pointless to be part of this system? Do we really want people to think that it is not worth responding to a consultation or not worth voting because whatever happens, the powers that be do not consider the ordinary person to be worth listening to? Do we want a society that will not challenge unethical policies because the authorities will force these through regardless?
The campaign to stop water fiuoridation has attracted old and young, political and non-political, mothers of young children, people with :
health problems, students, academics, environmentalists, health professionals and people from outside the area who feel that a dangerous precedent will be set if this goes ahead. It represents a cross-section of society and provides a collective voice for those who do not want this scheme imposed on them individually or as a region.
The campaign has not been undermined by the patronising attitude of the SHA who seem to think that ordinary citizens do not have a valid viewpoint and has labelled those who object to their water being medicated as "conspiracy theorists" or not informed or intelligent enough to do their own research.
Dissenters have been ignored, insulted and patronised with one city councillor calling those who object to fiuoridation "rather strange" at the city council vote last November.
My own MP, Alan Whitehead, has not responded to any of my letters with an individual reply just a photocopied standard letter that others too have received. What a way to treat a constituent and former supporter.
The judge dealing with the judicial review has said that the consultation process raises important issues of law but whatever the judge decides, the fight to keep the region's water fluoride free will continue.
Opposition won't go away and there will be new challenges to Southampton City Council and the SHA. Unelected health authorities, water companies, pro fluoride councillors and politicians ignore us at your peril.

(photo of Ann Richards)

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

USA - Dangerous Drugs found in Water! Demand cleaner water without drugs, including fluoride!

NZ - Fluoride dumbing down a generation of NZ kids?

Fluoride dumbing down a generation of NZ kids?
Wednesday, 16 September 2009, 10:13 am
Press Release: Fluoridation Free NZ
Fluoride dumbing down a generation of NZ kids?
Just as a deficiency of iodine reduces intelligence by reducing thyroid function, as recently publicised, so too does too much fluoride. This is the finding of 23 published studies from China, many recently translated into English – by an average of 4 to 5 IQ points. Although seemingly small, this shift significantly increases the number of severely intellectually retarded children.

The harm from fluoride, added by a minority of local councils to New Zealand water supplies in the belief it reduces tooth decay, is accentuated in people with iodine deficiency according to the leading international review, in 2006 – a double whammy.

In fact, fluoride, also added to toothpaste, has been used medically to deliberately reduce (overactive) thyroid function. So what is it doing to a normally active thyroid? “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out” responds Mark Atkin, Fluoridation-free NZ Coalition representative.

China has naturally high levels of fluoride in some areas, hence the Chinese take health dangers posed by fluoride seriously, “unlike fluoridation pushers in the West” asserts Mr Atkin. But total intake is reaching similar levels in western fluoridated countries. Most at risk are bottle fed infants – who get 250 times more fluoride than nature intended if fluoridated water is used to mix the formula, advises Mr Atkin.

“Both fluoridated water, and swallowed fluoride toothpaste, pose health risks to children. While child-strength toothpaste is available, to minimise risk, organisations such as the Ministry of Health, Plunket, and the NZ Dental Association tell parents to ignore warnings, give adult strength toothpaste to their children, and not rinse off the surplus but leave it on the teeth to be absorbed or swallowed. This is irresponsible to the point of criminal negligence” says Mr Atkin, a qualified lawyer, adding “law suits are being prepared in the USA and Australia – it is only a matter of time for NZ – just like Agent Orange claims.”

1995 research showed that swallowed toothpaste can cause ‘spike’ levels of fluoride in the blood shown to cause nerve damage in laboratory rats. Fluoride was also identified as “an emerging neurotoxin” (in relation to children) in the medical journal Lancet in 2007.

“Yet the Ministry of Health continues to bury its head in the sand and repeat, like a stuck record, “fluoride is safe and effective, safe and effective …” (if we say it often enough wearing a white coat people will believe us)” notes Mr Atkin.


UK - Fluoride: let's wait for the unemotive facts

Fluoride: let's wait for the unemotive facts
Date: 16 September 2009
Albert Road
Sowerby Bridge
I READ in the Courier, September 4, that Coun Craig Whittaker has started a petition against fluoridation of our water supply.

I'm an unqualified layperson regarding the chemistry and biology of fluoride, as will be Joe Public signing this petition, so it's bound to be an emotional not factual petition.
I became suspicious when unqualified self-appointed "expert" anti-fluoride campaigners use emotive language that fluoridation is mass medication. It's not. You only take medicine to cure an already acquired illness. You don't take asprins every day to prevent you getting a headache.
I become even more suspicious when the anti-fluoride campaigners claims become so exaggerated that they contradict themselves. As Barbara Sutcliffe pointed out in her excellent letter ("Your say," September 1). Dennis Edmondson has claimed that fluoride kills plants, and is in the fruit and vegetables we buy; miraculously without having killed them! If the case against fluoride is so strong, why resort to such exaggeration and emotive language?
Let's therefore wait for the NHS Calderdale study into fluoridation, to be completed in spring 2010, for factual not emotional advice, instead of an emotive petition now by uninformed people.
George Simpson

Of course those for fluoride will never use emotive arguments!

Two films taken during the Southampton consultation one of Prof Connett and for a very unbiased Stephen Peckham presentaion

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

No evidence of dental benefits of fluoridation

No evidence of dental benefits of fluoridation
Les Granges
A few more observations on water fluoridation.
There is no evidence that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay. The countries with the lowest tooth decay, Holland, Finland and others do not add fluorosilicic acid toxic industrial waste from the phosphate fertiliser industry to tap water.

In France fluoride is added to some brands of table salt so we have a choice of whether to we are medicated or not. The brands of salt containing fluoride have a warning on them not to consume fluoride in water at above half of one part per million (ppm) which is half the level the UK and US Governments say is a safe level.

Added to water at 1ppm fluoride has been found to accumulate in sediment in pipe bends and valves at up to 6000ppm, a potential injurious level if some of the sediment was disturbed and delivered to a house.

Edward Priestley

Canada - Northern Health voices concerns over fluoride ban

Photo: Health officials and Northern Health representatives present a report to City Council on Monday night (Left to Right) Dental Hygenist Tammy Gulevich, Dentist Amy Tseng, Northern Health's Manager for Prevention in the Northeast Nick Oliphant, Medical Health Officer with Northern Health Doctor Charl Badenhorst and Dental Hygenist Linda Bourcet. - Christine Rumleskie/Energeticcity.

The City’s decision to ban fluoride from Fort St. John’s water supply is leaving a bad taste in the mouths of some health officials.
On Monday night's City Council meeting, a crew of dentists, dental hygienists and Northern Health representatives presented a report on the benefits of fluoride in the city's water supply.
Doctor Charl Badenhorst is a Medical Health Officer with Northern Health. He urged councilors to hold a referendum and let the community decide whether or not fluoride should be banned.
In June, concerned resident Dorothy Folk asked Council to remove the chemical from the water supply. She cited fluoride as poisonous and unnecessary.
But Northern Health says this is not true. In fact, Dental Hygienist Linda Bourcet says the chemical is vital for low-income families who cannot afford routine dental maintenance. She says especially with children, the chemical builds up over time and protects teeth.
Bourcet says six per cent of B.C.'s population has fluoride added to its water, compared to 80 per cent in Alberta. Northern Health couldn't pinpoint why there is such a gap between the two neighboring provinces.
Now, the City still wants to decide wither or not to remove the fluoride from the city's supply.
Councilor Don Irwin says he is looking forward to reviewing all sides of the debate.
Councilor Lori Ackerman confirmed with Bourcet that if residents want fluoride out of the water supply, they could purchase an at-home reverse osmosis filtering system.
Meanwhile, Mayor Bruce Lantz says it is unknown at this time if there will be a referendum.

UK - Daily Echo - 'We should let voters decide'

SOUTHAMPTON: Anti-fluoride campaigner in challenge
'We should let voters decide'
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk For up-to-the-minute news and information - dailyecho.co.uk
HE has led the fight to stop fluoride being added to Hampshire's water.
Now John Spottiswoode is to challenge Government minister John Denham for his place in Parliament.
Mr Spottiswoode, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, wants to turn the vote into the referendum on fluoridation that has so far been denied to the 200,000 people in and around the city affected by it.
He has been selected as the Green Party candidate for the Southampton Itchen seat at the next general election, which must be held by June 3 next year.
He will also come up against Southampton City Council deputy leader Royston Smith, who will be standing as the Conservative candidate.
Mr , Spottiswoode said: "Clearly there are many other issues of importance in a general election and the Greens have substantial policies on all of these.
"However, the big issue in Southampton of putting a known toxin in
our water against our will goes to the heart of our democracy and what our politicians should do. What right does anyone have to force anyone else to drink what is widely considered to be a poison? Further, by what right does an unelected health quango have to decide to add fluoride to our drinking water
when a massive 72 per cent rejected the idea in the public consultation, despite the authorities running a very biased pro-fluoride campaign?"
Mr Spottiswoode, a married father-of-four who was a county councillor in Suffolk before moving to Southampton, said that the man he is challenging is one of those responsible for fluoridation being approved for Hampshire.

Mr Denham, the Government's Communities Secretary, has consistently said that he agrees with fluoridation as a principle. However, earlier this year he changed his stance to say that although he personally believes it is the right thing to do, the scheme should be put on hold until it can be shown that the public agrees with adding fluoride to tap the public agrees with water.
Cllr Smith is opposed to fluoride being added to Hampshire tap water and has also backed the Daily Echo's calls for a referendum on the issue.

UK - Daily Echo - Fluoride ruling: let's hope democracy wins

Fluoride ruling: let's hope democracy wins
WHAT welcome news that the decision to add fluoride to our drinking water is to go to the high court for a ruling.
Let's hope that democracy and common decency win the day and the wishes of the people who should be affected are respected. If health chiefs really want to improve the oral health of the city's young people they should be lobbying for fewer processed foods - which are full of harmful chemicals including refined sugars which cause dental problems (among other health issues).
Perhaps a ban on restaurants selling processed foods produced in large factories, which are often a hidden source of sugar, salt, fat and chemicals in food that people think is wholesome natural, real, or home cooked - such as lasagne or chilli con carne.
MATT PROBERT, Southampton.

Monday, September 14, 2009

Clean Water Laws Are Neglected, at a Cost in Suffering

Ryan Massey, 7, shows his caps. Dentists near Charleston, W.Va., say pollutants in drinking water have damaged residents’ teeth. Nationwide, polluters have violated the Clean Water Act more than 500,000 times.
Published: September 12, 2009
Jennifer Hall-Massey knows not to drink the tap water in her home near Charleston, W.Va.

In fact, her entire family tries to avoid any contact with the water. Her youngest son has scabs on his arms, legs and chest where the bathwater — polluted with lead, nickel and other heavy metals — caused painful rashes. Many of his brother’s teeth were capped to replace enamel that was eaten away.

Neighbors apply special lotions after showering because their skin burns. Tests show that their tap water contains arsenic, barium, lead, manganese and other chemicals at concentrations federal regulators say could contribute to cancer and damage the kidneys and nervous system.

“How can we get digital cable and Internet in our homes, but not clean water?” said Mrs. Hall-Massey, a senior accountant at one of the state’s largest banks.

She and her husband, Charles, do not live in some remote corner of Appalachia. Charleston, the state capital, is less than 17 miles from her home.

“How is this still happening today?” she asked.

When Mrs. Hall-Massey and 264 neighbors sued nine nearby coal companies, accusing them of putting dangerous waste into local water supplies, their lawyer did not have to look far for evidence. As required by state law, some of the companies had disclosed in reports to regulators that they were pumping into the ground illegal concentrations of chemicals — the same pollutants that flowed from residents’ taps.

But state regulators never fined or punished those companies for breaking those pollution laws.

This pattern is not limited to West Virginia. Almost four decades ago, Congress passed the Clean Water Act to force polluters to disclose the toxins they dump into waterways and to give regulators the power to fine or jail offenders. States have passed pollution statutes of their own. But in recent years, violations of the Clean Water Act have risen steadily across the nation, an extensive review of water pollution records by The New York Times found.

In the last five years alone, chemical factories, manufacturing plants and other workplaces have violated water pollution laws more than half a million times. The violations range from failing to report emissions to dumping toxins at concentrations regulators say might contribute to cancer, birth defects and other illnesses.

However, the vast majority of those polluters have escaped punishment. State officials have repeatedly ignored obvious illegal dumping, and the Environmental Protection Agency, which can prosecute polluters when states fail to act, has often declined to intervene.

Because it is difficult to determine what causes diseases like cancer, it is impossible to know how many illnesses are the result of water pollution, or contaminants’ role in the health problems of specific individuals. ......................Long article