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

UK Against Fluoridation

Saturday, November 28, 2009

UK - Daily Echo Letters

Well-researched fluoride arguments

BILL Edmunds is so right (Letters, November 24) when he says that even some people connected with Southampton PCT, exposed as they were to so much one-sided pro-fluoridation propaganda, have expressed their opposition to fluoridation.
I was until recently an employee of Southampton PCT. The pro-fluoridation policy was presented to us as incontrovertible fact.
We were fed the line that as fluoride occurred naturally anyway, all that was being proposed was a top-up.
I also heard the completely illogical assertion that adding chlorine is fine, so why not add artificial fluoride too? "Hmm", I thought. "So then why not add lots more chemicals like for example, bromide, in order to calm men down a bit, reduce the incidence of rape and limit the population?" That would be just as ridiculous.
As well as being expected to embrace the fluoridation message unquestioningly, we were asked to promote it, including writing as private individuals to the SHA during the consultation.
So, after a scientist friend told me that the science backing fluoridation was highly dubious, I decided to look into it for myself.
I was shocked at what I found. Just a top-up of the fluoride that's already there? Er, no. -It's actually hexafluorosilicic acid, an industrial waste product that it is illegal to dump in the sea, that they want to put into our drinking water.
And far from promulgating cranky pseudo-scientific rubbish, I found that anti-fluoridationists offered well-researched facts and cogent arguments.
Numerous peer-reviewed scientific and medical papers found fluoridation to be ineffective in reducing tooth decay, or possibly harmful to health or both. -Two thousand experts, worldwide, in the fields of medicine, pharmacology, toxicology and other relevant sciences counsel against fluoridation. Even scientists commissioned by the Government protest that their findings have been distorted to make fluoridation seem a lot safer than it is.
SUE ROBSON, Southampton

Fluoride concern
WATER fluoridation does not cause all fluoride poisoning cases but adds an ever increasing exposure of everyone from many sources. The one part per million (ppm) added to water does not mean that 1 ppm will be delivered to a house. In the USA when water pipes were corroded the cause was found to be up to 6.000 ppm of fluoride accumulated in sediment in pipe bends and valves. The laboratories doing the tests noted if some of this sediment was disturbed and delivered to a house it could injure anyone drinking it.
In the USA over 20,000 cases of fluoride poisoning cases are reported to poisons units every year due to fluoride poisoning from toothpaste alone which includes the odd death,
The A&E Unit at Dudley Hospital, Birmingham in a paper to the Emergency Medicine Journal in December 1993 noted that fluoride poisoning cases and causing systemic poisoning were being overlooked because the systemic effects were being overlooked and just the burns being treated.
The Israeli Medical Journal May 2008 notes poisoning from fluoride and details the systemic affects causing cardiac arrest and sudden deaths due to reduced calcium levels which are often overlooked with fluoride-penetrating the body from external exposures,
The French and most governments worldwide have stated they do fluoridate water supplies for ethical and medical considerations. The French Government also say that half of one ppm is the safe limit, half the level the UK Government say is safe. The countries with least tooth decay like Finland, Holland and others do not fluoridate their water supplies as fluoride does not help reduce tooth decay It does how ever help big industry dispose of highly toxic waste cheaply EDWARD PRIESTLEY, France.

"they do fluoridate" misprint by the Echo, should be "they do not fluoridate ."

1 Comments:

  • I have it on the authority of a French public health advisor and science professor, that there was a meeting in the early 1990s to discuss the feasibility of introducing fluoridation into France as a public health measure. Very soon after the meeting commenced, someone asked " How can dosage be controlled?" to which came the answer" it can't", whereupon this daft Anglo-Saxon idea was dropped. Only in Europe's lone bastions of dentist-driven mass medication, the UK and Eire, is this key question dismissed. The result? Fluoridated drinking water continues to expose tens of thousands, above all vulnerable infants and children, to an industrial waste listed as hazardous waste by the European Waste Directive (91/689/EEC).

    By Anonymous Robert Pocock, at 02 December, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home