Governments Passing Forced Fluoridation Laws!!
posted by Bill at
10:04 AM
|
0 comments
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
New York TImes
Fluoridation Pro and Con (2 Letters)Published: January 30, 2012
To the Editor:
Re “Dental Exam Went Well? Thank Fluoride” (Personal Health, Jan. 24): When the three of us (retired professors in chemistry, physics and biology) wrote a book on the fluoridation controversy, we hoped it would raise the level of the debate. In “The Case Against Fluoride,” our arguments were supported with numerous scientific citations, which proponents of fluoridation have made little effort to acknowledge or refute. We cannot expect sensible decisions to be made on these matters when one side pretends there is no debate and a leading newspaper like The New York Times lets them get away with it.
Paul Connett
Canton, N.Y.
James Beck, M.D.
Calgary, Alberta
Spedding Micklem
Edinburgh
♦
To the Editor:
Congratulations to Jane E. Brody on her well-written article on water fluoridation, which is in line with accepted scientific evidence and peer-reviewed articles in numerous journals. Her writing is a contrast to the ubiquitous misinformation and misuse of raw data available on the Internet. Water fluoridation not only saves money, but also helps avoid pain and suffering.
Tom Curran
Elmira, N.Y.
Never the twain shall meet.
To the Editor:
Re “Dental Exam Went Well? Thank Fluoride” (Personal Health, Jan. 24): When the three of us (retired professors in chemistry, physics and biology) wrote a book on the fluoridation controversy, we hoped it would raise the level of the debate. In “The Case Against Fluoride,” our arguments were supported with numerous scientific citations, which proponents of fluoridation have made little effort to acknowledge or refute. We cannot expect sensible decisions to be made on these matters when one side pretends there is no debate and a leading newspaper like The New York Times lets them get away with it.
Paul Connett
Canton, N.Y.
James Beck, M.D.
Calgary, Alberta
Spedding Micklem
Edinburgh
♦
To the Editor:
Congratulations to Jane E. Brody on her well-written article on water fluoridation, which is in line with accepted scientific evidence and peer-reviewed articles in numerous journals. Her writing is a contrast to the ubiquitous misinformation and misuse of raw data available on the Internet. Water fluoridation not only saves money, but also helps avoid pain and suffering.
Tom Curran
Elmira, N.Y.
Never the twain shall meet.
posted by Bill at
9:54 AM
|
0 comments
USA - Another Push to Add Fluoride to Public Drinking Water
Another Push to Add Fluoride to Public Drinking Water
Assembly panel clears bill that once again pits dentists against water companies, environmentalists
Convincing a majority of lawmakers of the benefits of requiring fluoride in New Jersey’s public water supply has been like pulling teeth for years in the New Jersey legislature.
The long-hoped for measure by dentists has consistently been opposed by environmentalists and water companies. But on Monday, the Assembly’s health committee took another shot at moving the bill.
“Hope springs eternal,” said Assemblyman Herb Conaway (D-Burlington), a medical doctor and chairman of the heath committee, which cleared a bill similar to legislation that failed to make it through the last session.
Only 13 percent of New Jerseyans drink fluoridated water, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), placing New Jersey next to the bottom nationwide.
Dentists say access to the teeth-strengthening fluoride would drastically reduce cavities, especially in the New Jersey’s poorer cities. “We see an awful lot of dental disease in children,” said Dr. Nanci Tofsky, professor and interim chair of the Department of Pediatric Dentistry at UMDNJ-New Jersey Dental School.
But the bill has its critics -- water companies and environmentalists who cite its impact on the environment, potentially harmful health effects, and the cost of installing fluoridation equipment for opposing the measure.
New Jersey has been talking about fluoridation “for the past 50 years,” said Arnold H. Rosenheck, assistant dean of the New Jersey Dental School.
“We’re going to keep plugging away because it’s too important to let it be,” Conaway said.
The Assembly health committee heard from both sides of the issue on Monday before clearing the bill for consideration by the full Assembly.
Assembly panel clears bill that once again pits dentists against water companies, environmentalists
Convincing a majority of lawmakers of the benefits of requiring fluoride in New Jersey’s public water supply has been like pulling teeth for years in the New Jersey legislature.
The long-hoped for measure by dentists has consistently been opposed by environmentalists and water companies. But on Monday, the Assembly’s health committee took another shot at moving the bill.
“Hope springs eternal,” said Assemblyman Herb Conaway (D-Burlington), a medical doctor and chairman of the heath committee, which cleared a bill similar to legislation that failed to make it through the last session.
Only 13 percent of New Jerseyans drink fluoridated water, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), placing New Jersey next to the bottom nationwide.
Dentists say access to the teeth-strengthening fluoride would drastically reduce cavities, especially in the New Jersey’s poorer cities. “We see an awful lot of dental disease in children,” said Dr. Nanci Tofsky, professor and interim chair of the Department of Pediatric Dentistry at UMDNJ-New Jersey Dental School.
But the bill has its critics -- water companies and environmentalists who cite its impact on the environment, potentially harmful health effects, and the cost of installing fluoridation equipment for opposing the measure.
New Jersey has been talking about fluoridation “for the past 50 years,” said Arnold H. Rosenheck, assistant dean of the New Jersey Dental School.
“We’re going to keep plugging away because it’s too important to let it be,” Conaway said.
The Assembly health committee heard from both sides of the issue on Monday before clearing the bill for consideration by the full Assembly.
posted by Bill at
9:51 AM
|
0 comments
Monday, January 30, 2012
USA - HEALTH CARE: Saving children's teeth
HEALTH CARE: Saving children's teeth
At 12 months of age, most babies have six new teeth, all of which can look perfect. But look again just six months later, and many of those new baby teeth will already show signs of decay.
In fact, decay of baby — or primary — teeth, a condition called early childhood caries (ECC) disease, is the most common chronic childhood disease in the U.S.
Here in Washington state, nearly six of 10 children suffer from tooth decay by the third grade, a statistic higher than the national average.
Early tooth decay can have wide-ranging effects on a child’s life. ...
Fluoridated USA
At 12 months of age, most babies have six new teeth, all of which can look perfect. But look again just six months later, and many of those new baby teeth will already show signs of decay.
In fact, decay of baby — or primary — teeth, a condition called early childhood caries (ECC) disease, is the most common chronic childhood disease in the U.S.
Here in Washington state, nearly six of 10 children suffer from tooth decay by the third grade, a statistic higher than the national average.
Early tooth decay can have wide-ranging effects on a child’s life. ...
Fluoridated USA
posted by Bill at
9:56 AM
|
2 comments
Taking Care of Young Teeth
Taking Care of Young Teeth
MISSION, KS, Jan 26, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- (Family Features) Healthy teeth and a healthy mouth give children more than just a beautiful smile. A healthy mouth supports overall health, and it can help children perform better in school. But far too many children have preventable oral health problems far too young.
Tooth decay affects more than 25 percent of American children 2 to 5 years old, and half of children 12 to 15 years old -- that's more than any other chronic infectious disease, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Left untreated, tooth decay causes pain and infection, which can lead to problems in eating, speaking, playing, and even learning.....
Fluoridated USA
MISSION, KS, Jan 26, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- (Family Features) Healthy teeth and a healthy mouth give children more than just a beautiful smile. A healthy mouth supports overall health, and it can help children perform better in school. But far too many children have preventable oral health problems far too young.
Tooth decay affects more than 25 percent of American children 2 to 5 years old, and half of children 12 to 15 years old -- that's more than any other chronic infectious disease, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Left untreated, tooth decay causes pain and infection, which can lead to problems in eating, speaking, playing, and even learning.....
Fluoridated USA
posted by Bill at
9:54 AM
|
0 comments
Modern science indicates that fluoridation is ineffective
nyscof posted at 12:46 am on Mon, Jan 30, 2012.
Modern science indicates that fluoridation is ineffective at reducing tooth decay, harmful to health and a waste of money. Fluoridation opposition is scientific, respectable and growing
More than 4,000 professionals (including 331 dentists and 443 MD’s) urge that fluoridation be stopped citing scientific evidence that ingesting fluoride is ineffective at reducing tooth decay and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluoridealert.org/professionals-statement.aspx
Eleven US EPA unions representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals are calling for a moratorium on fluoridation.
The CDC reports that 225 less communities adjusted for fluoride between 2006 and 2008. About 100 US and Canadian communities rejected fluoridation since 2008.
Modern science indicates that fluoridation is ineffective at reducing tooth decay, harmful to health and a waste of money. Fluoridation opposition is scientific, respectable and growing
More than 4,000 professionals (including 331 dentists and 443 MD’s) urge that fluoridation be stopped citing scientific evidence that ingesting fluoride is ineffective at reducing tooth decay and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluoridealert.org/professionals-statement.aspx
Eleven US EPA unions representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals are calling for a moratorium on fluoridation.
The CDC reports that 225 less communities adjusted for fluoride between 2006 and 2008. About 100 US and Canadian communities rejected fluoridation since 2008.
posted by Bill at
9:46 AM
|
0 comments
UK - Daily Echo - Fluoride case should go to court of human rights
Fluoride case should go to court of human rightsCOULD the SHA or Southern Water tell us from whose factory chimneys will the poison fluoride be coming from, as we have little in the way of manufacturing now and very few chimneys in this part of the world?
Is it going to be imported from other countries such as China, which is awash with chimneys, and whose population, if living in those areas, have to wear masks when outside?
Where has it been dumped before now, and what happens if it cannot be placed in our drinking water?
Finally, has Hampshire Against Fluoride had any thoughts about taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights? There are I'm sure many of us who would back them and contribute to any cost this incurred.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED.
posted by Bill at
9:29 AM
|
0 comments
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Pam Killeen on fluoride Jan-25-2012 London ONTARIO
Good presentation
posted by Bill at
9:45 AM
|
0 comments
Bacteria key player in dental problems
Bacteria key player in dental problems
Dear Dr. Reitz: I am 30 years old and never needed a filling. Have scientific
discoveries eliminated cavities or am I just lucky. - June of Reading
Dear June: The addition of fluoride to water and toothpaste has hardened teeth, making them more resistant to the acids produced by oral bacteria, but it has not eliminated tooth decay.In my dental practice I have patients that have never had a cavity and others with multiple areas of decay. Cavities usually are blamed on eating candy, but candy is only one part of the problem. The chance of getting tooth decay islikely related to the amount of a specific bacteria - Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) - present in the mouth.
The mouth is home to thousands of different bacteria. It has been known for many years that S mutans is the bacteria most responsible for tooth decay, finding a method of eliminating it has been the problem. Most methods of killing oral bacteria only work for a short time, plus having some beneficial bacteria is important to prevent overgrowth of yeast. New research from the UCLA School of Dentistry may have found a method of selectively removing S mutans.
Research conduced by oral biologist Dr. Wenyuan Shi of UCLA with support of Colgate Palmolive has produced a mouthwash that selectively targets S mutans using antimicrobial peptides. You may remember I wrote in a previous column about Dr. Shi's licorice root extract lollipops that target and disable the bacteria responsible for tooth decay.Well, he's at it again, this time creating an antimicrobial mouthwash.
The mouthwash contains antimicrobial peptides that eliminate only the harmful S mutans. Twelve patients who rinsed just one time with the experimental mouthwash experienced a nearly complete elimination of the S. mutans bacteria over a four-day testing period. Based on the success of this clinical trial Dr. Shi's company has filed a drug application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, to begin more extensive clinical trials in March. If the FDA approves this new antimicrobial peptide it will be the first anti-dental decay drug since fluoride was licensed nearly 60 years ago.
The new concept of using targeted antimicrobial peptides may do more than just eliminate tooth decay. This work may be the beginning for developing additional target-specific antimicrobials to combat other diseases.
You have been fortunate to escape tooth decay, targeted antimicrobial peptides may soon eliminate tooth decay for those not as lucky.
Dear Dr. Reitz: I am 30 years old and never needed a filling. Have scientific
discoveries eliminated cavities or am I just lucky. - June of Reading
Dear June: The addition of fluoride to water and toothpaste has hardened teeth, making them more resistant to the acids produced by oral bacteria, but it has not eliminated tooth decay.In my dental practice I have patients that have never had a cavity and others with multiple areas of decay. Cavities usually are blamed on eating candy, but candy is only one part of the problem. The chance of getting tooth decay islikely related to the amount of a specific bacteria - Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) - present in the mouth.
The mouth is home to thousands of different bacteria. It has been known for many years that S mutans is the bacteria most responsible for tooth decay, finding a method of eliminating it has been the problem. Most methods of killing oral bacteria only work for a short time, plus having some beneficial bacteria is important to prevent overgrowth of yeast. New research from the UCLA School of Dentistry may have found a method of selectively removing S mutans.
Research conduced by oral biologist Dr. Wenyuan Shi of UCLA with support of Colgate Palmolive has produced a mouthwash that selectively targets S mutans using antimicrobial peptides. You may remember I wrote in a previous column about Dr. Shi's licorice root extract lollipops that target and disable the bacteria responsible for tooth decay.Well, he's at it again, this time creating an antimicrobial mouthwash.
The mouthwash contains antimicrobial peptides that eliminate only the harmful S mutans. Twelve patients who rinsed just one time with the experimental mouthwash experienced a nearly complete elimination of the S. mutans bacteria over a four-day testing period. Based on the success of this clinical trial Dr. Shi's company has filed a drug application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, to begin more extensive clinical trials in March. If the FDA approves this new antimicrobial peptide it will be the first anti-dental decay drug since fluoride was licensed nearly 60 years ago.
The new concept of using targeted antimicrobial peptides may do more than just eliminate tooth decay. This work may be the beginning for developing additional target-specific antimicrobials to combat other diseases.
You have been fortunate to escape tooth decay, targeted antimicrobial peptides may soon eliminate tooth decay for those not as lucky.
posted by Bill at
9:37 AM
|
0 comments
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Australia - The Bligh years: a government prepares to be judged Daniel Hurst
Anna Bligh will face the electorate in March.The Bligh years: a government prepares to be judged Daniel Hurst
January 28, 2012.
Fluoride, economic upheaval, cost complaints, disaster and triumph – Anna Bligh's 4½ years as Queensland premier has had its ups and downs.
Ms Bligh – who admits she faces the fight of her political life to fend off the resurgent Liberal National Party at the looming March 24 election – was long groomed to take over the premiership by her predecessor, Peter Beattie.
When she did finally take over the top job in September 2007, Ms Bligh was left with several pieces of unfinished business from the Beattie era. These included having to bed down the controversial council amalgamations, finish building the water grid conceived at the height of the drought (thereby pushing up household water prices), and tackle persistent problems with Queensland Health.
But Ms Bligh, Queensland's first female premier, also quickly sought to differentiate herself from her mentor. It came in the form of fluoride. While Mr Beattie had offered rebates to councils that chose to fluoridate their waters supplies, Ms Bligh went the whole hog and decided to do it herself.
Her December 2007 decision, touted as a crucial step to improving children's oral health, would see 80 per cent of Queenslanders drinking fluoridated water within two years and 90 per cent by 2012......
posted by Bill at
10:05 AM
|
0 comments
Friday, January 27, 2012
Canada - Fluoride debate rages on
Photo by Mike Maloney/London Community NewsPaul Connett lets his frustrations show towards the continued use of fluoride in drinking water.
Fluoride debate rages on
By Sean Meyer/London Community News
Fluoridation of the city’s water supply is either a safe and inexpensive technique to improve people’s health or is an insulting way of eliminating personal freedom of choice.
Despite hours of “he said, she said” conversations, those were the two fundamental issues that came forward during a Civic Works Committee meeting at Centennial Hall that began on Wednesday evening (Jan. 25) and ran into the arly hours of Thursday morning.
An audience of more than 250 people turned out to listen to presentations from doctors, dentists, activists and ordinary citizens passionately supportive of their given side of the debate. Of that crowd, approximately three-quarters of those speaking were calling for an end to fluoridation, which started in London in 1967.
Ultimately, a meeting that wrapped up at almost 1 a.m. saw the committee vote to have staff pour over the details of the nearly six-hour meeting with the intention of bringing back a report in six weeks. Staff indicated it would be difficult to have a report ready for the committee’s next meeting, but felt comfortable with the one after that............
posted by Bill at
9:36 AM
|
0 comments
USA - Cost and safety of fluoride questioned
Cost and safety of fluoride questioned
Friday, January 27, 2012
Kathryn Lucariello
......Office manager Jim Allison said employees are also concerned about safety, both for themselves having to handle the fluoride and for the public. Water operators are required to operate under NSF/ANSI Standard 60, which addresses the health effects of water treatment chemicals and additives.
NSF 60 requires full disclosure of each chemical added to water and a toxicology review.
In the case of industrial fluoride, it's not the fluoride itself, but what else might be in it, Allison said.
"The district has written forty-nine letters and had no answers from manufacturers or the Health Department. All fluoride products have contaminants. We need to know what we're putting in the water because consumers will ask.
"We're at a quandary out here. Do we follow NSF 60? It's not pharmaceutical grade, so there are contaminants."
"I don't know if we have the ability to enforce the manufacturers to reveal what's in it," said James Yates, board president. "We also want to worry about whether we have the proper safety handling procedures for our employees, to have a very safe environment for them." ..............
Friday, January 27, 2012
Kathryn Lucariello
......Office manager Jim Allison said employees are also concerned about safety, both for themselves having to handle the fluoride and for the public. Water operators are required to operate under NSF/ANSI Standard 60, which addresses the health effects of water treatment chemicals and additives.
NSF 60 requires full disclosure of each chemical added to water and a toxicology review.
In the case of industrial fluoride, it's not the fluoride itself, but what else might be in it, Allison said.
"The district has written forty-nine letters and had no answers from manufacturers or the Health Department. All fluoride products have contaminants. We need to know what we're putting in the water because consumers will ask.
"We're at a quandary out here. Do we follow NSF 60? It's not pharmaceutical grade, so there are contaminants."
"I don't know if we have the ability to enforce the manufacturers to reveal what's in it," said James Yates, board president. "We also want to worry about whether we have the proper safety handling procedures for our employees, to have a very safe environment for them." ..............
posted by Bill at
9:31 AM
|
0 comments
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Why You Need to Personally Treat Your Own Water
NaturalSociety
January 25, 2012
Mike Barrett
Why You Need to Personally Treat Your Own Water
Why do we need to worry about the water we are consuming each and every day? When referring to a group of people or someone acting different, the phrase “it must be in the water” is often used as a response. While this phrase is always used comically, you need to know that many of your health problems may indeed be result of what is in the water you are consuming every day.
Why You Absolutely Must Personally Treat Your Own Water
Many people are unaware of the vast amount of chemicals lurking in nearly all public water supplies. If you are using tap water to cook your food, or drinking it straight from the faucet, then you are exposing yourself to these substances. One of the most commonly noted, controversial substances in the water supply is fluoride.
It was only a few years ago that if you labeled fluoride as a dangerous substance, you would be laughed at and scorned. For years, a select minority of individuals were the only ones raising the awareness of this health concern. Their cries have been and continue to be met with dissonance, despite the fact that the public’s opinion on fluoride has changed much in just a short time. In fact, even the United States government has called for lower levels of water fluoridation following a study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, which found that increased fluoride consumption led to decreased IQ in children.
Fluoride is not the only thing in your water. Cocaine, various hormones birth control, pharmaceuticals, and other toxic pollutants are often found in the drinking water across the United States.
Other pollutants typically found in the drinking water:
Lead, which can enter the water supply through corrosive pipes or improper water treatment
Pathogens that cause disease and are especially crippling to those with weakened immune systems
By-products of chlorine treatment such as trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids, which have been linked to cancer and reproductive problems
Arsenic, which may cause cancer, serious skin problems, birth defects and reproductive problems
Radon, a carcinogen linked to lung cancer
Hopefully UK water may not be as bad.
Nice to be known as one of a select minority of individuals instead of the usual insulting terms used by those promoting fluoride
January 25, 2012
Mike Barrett
Why You Need to Personally Treat Your Own Water
Why do we need to worry about the water we are consuming each and every day? When referring to a group of people or someone acting different, the phrase “it must be in the water” is often used as a response. While this phrase is always used comically, you need to know that many of your health problems may indeed be result of what is in the water you are consuming every day.
Why You Absolutely Must Personally Treat Your Own Water
Many people are unaware of the vast amount of chemicals lurking in nearly all public water supplies. If you are using tap water to cook your food, or drinking it straight from the faucet, then you are exposing yourself to these substances. One of the most commonly noted, controversial substances in the water supply is fluoride.
It was only a few years ago that if you labeled fluoride as a dangerous substance, you would be laughed at and scorned. For years, a select minority of individuals were the only ones raising the awareness of this health concern. Their cries have been and continue to be met with dissonance, despite the fact that the public’s opinion on fluoride has changed much in just a short time. In fact, even the United States government has called for lower levels of water fluoridation following a study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, which found that increased fluoride consumption led to decreased IQ in children.
Fluoride is not the only thing in your water. Cocaine, various hormones birth control, pharmaceuticals, and other toxic pollutants are often found in the drinking water across the United States.
Other pollutants typically found in the drinking water:
Lead, which can enter the water supply through corrosive pipes or improper water treatment
Pathogens that cause disease and are especially crippling to those with weakened immune systems
By-products of chlorine treatment such as trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids, which have been linked to cancer and reproductive problems
Arsenic, which may cause cancer, serious skin problems, birth defects and reproductive problems
Radon, a carcinogen linked to lung cancer
Hopefully UK water may not be as bad.
Nice to be known as one of a select minority of individuals instead of the usual insulting terms used by those promoting fluoride
posted by Bill at
10:56 AM
|
0 comments
Ireland - High time to flush the fluoride from our water
High time to flush the fluoride from our water
Wednesday January 25 2012
Dear Minister (CC: Editor, Drogheda Independent)
Reading through the report on water quality last week told me nothing new about our water system here in Ireland - the leaks, the amount of monies spent just to keep it going, the things people can do to conserve water in this country. It all makes for a fascinating read but it fails to mention one critical thing minister: how much do we spend on poisoning ourselves every year with fluoride?
We are one of if not the last country in the EU to stop this practice, even north of the border you can get clean drinking water. This has to stop minister ASAP.
Not only would it save people's health, it would save the exchequer money.
I myself have to travel anything up to 30km a week to get fresh drinking water and if I'm not able to do this we have to buy bottled water in our local shop because the water in the mains is not fit for human consumption. Indeed, this poison is leaking into every river and lake in Ireland.
The facts are proven about fluoride, all the studies have been done all over the world minister. The facts are too long here to lay down but if at any time you would like them I'd be only too happy to furnish you with them.
So. in closing minister, why, oh why on this green land of ours would you expect me or the tens of thousands like me pay for a poisoned water supply. It's just not going to happen.
Yours, Martin Farrell,
Drogheda.
Wednesday January 25 2012
Dear Minister (CC: Editor, Drogheda Independent)
Reading through the report on water quality last week told me nothing new about our water system here in Ireland - the leaks, the amount of monies spent just to keep it going, the things people can do to conserve water in this country. It all makes for a fascinating read but it fails to mention one critical thing minister: how much do we spend on poisoning ourselves every year with fluoride?
We are one of if not the last country in the EU to stop this practice, even north of the border you can get clean drinking water. This has to stop minister ASAP.
Not only would it save people's health, it would save the exchequer money.
I myself have to travel anything up to 30km a week to get fresh drinking water and if I'm not able to do this we have to buy bottled water in our local shop because the water in the mains is not fit for human consumption. Indeed, this poison is leaking into every river and lake in Ireland.
The facts are proven about fluoride, all the studies have been done all over the world minister. The facts are too long here to lay down but if at any time you would like them I'd be only too happy to furnish you with them.
So. in closing minister, why, oh why on this green land of ours would you expect me or the tens of thousands like me pay for a poisoned water supply. It's just not going to happen.
Yours, Martin Farrell,
Drogheda.
posted by Bill at
10:13 AM
|
0 comments
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Canada - Fluoride debate a big draw
Fluoride debate a big draw
PUBLIC HEALTH
By Free Press Staff
Last Updated: January 25, 2012 8:05am
Nearly 50 people are slated to speak Wednesday night during what promises to be a marathon public-input session on the use of fluoride in London drinking water.
Council’s civic works committee will begin hearing opinions on the increasingly high-profile issue at 7 p.m. at the meeting, moved to Centennial Hall to make room for the expected crowds.
Public-health officials have expressed their support for continuing the use of fluoride, which proponents call a low-cost way to prevent tooth decay.
Critics, though, believe there are a slew of health effects related to the chemical, which has been added to London tap water since 1967.
The Middlesex-London Health Unit last year backed continued fluoride use. The issue was then brought to city council, which voted to hold the public meeting.
Coun. Stephen Orser, who says he’s recently become convinced fluoride should be removed, says that given Wednesday’s meeting structure — each person is allotted five minutes to speak — he expects it to last well past midnight.
Water fluoridation has prompted significant opposition in several Canadian cities. Waterloo, for example, has stopped adding fluoride after a slim majority of residents voted for its elimination in a 2010 referendum.
PUBLIC HEALTH
By Free Press Staff
Last Updated: January 25, 2012 8:05am
Nearly 50 people are slated to speak Wednesday night during what promises to be a marathon public-input session on the use of fluoride in London drinking water.
Council’s civic works committee will begin hearing opinions on the increasingly high-profile issue at 7 p.m. at the meeting, moved to Centennial Hall to make room for the expected crowds.
Public-health officials have expressed their support for continuing the use of fluoride, which proponents call a low-cost way to prevent tooth decay.
Critics, though, believe there are a slew of health effects related to the chemical, which has been added to London tap water since 1967.
The Middlesex-London Health Unit last year backed continued fluoride use. The issue was then brought to city council, which voted to hold the public meeting.
Coun. Stephen Orser, who says he’s recently become convinced fluoride should be removed, says that given Wednesday’s meeting structure — each person is allotted five minutes to speak — he expects it to last well past midnight.
Water fluoridation has prompted significant opposition in several Canadian cities. Waterloo, for example, has stopped adding fluoride after a slim majority of residents voted for its elimination in a 2010 referendum.
posted by Bill at
4:13 PM
|
0 comments
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
UK - SOUTHAMPTON: Party leaders vow to stand firm
SOUTHAMPTON: Party leaders vow to stand firm
Fluoride 'bribe won't sway us
By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
SOUTHAMPTON'S political leaders have vowed not to be "bribed" into supporting fluoridation.
The leaders of all three main parties on the city council last night said that they would not back adding the controversial chemical to the tap water of 200,000 homes in a bid to gain extra cash from the Government.
Their pledges came after Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said that councils would be in line for bonuses if they improve measures such as dental health once they are handed powers taken from soon-to-be-axed health authorities.
Fears have been raised that the "health premium" incentive could make it more likely that councils will adopt practices such as fluoridation.
Stephen Peckham, chairman of campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation, said he believed that the move to hand local authorities public health responsibilities for the first time since the 1970s was a positive step.
However he added: "I am concerned that there will be a pressure on councils to use the money for fluoridation, but what I hope is that local authorities will be much more focused on dealing with the problem of tooth decay through developing community-based approaches which have been proven to work in other areas. "I would hope that councils would use the opportunity to do something that is effective, and although we should never underestimate those pushing for fluoridation, I think it is about time that the role is taken away from the dentists."
Southampton's council group leaders all said that they would not be looking to introduce fluoridation if it is not already in place by the time South Central Strategic Health Authority is disbanded in spring 2013......................
Fluoride 'bribe won't sway us
By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
SOUTHAMPTON'S political leaders have vowed not to be "bribed" into supporting fluoridation.
The leaders of all three main parties on the city council last night said that they would not back adding the controversial chemical to the tap water of 200,000 homes in a bid to gain extra cash from the Government.
Their pledges came after Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said that councils would be in line for bonuses if they improve measures such as dental health once they are handed powers taken from soon-to-be-axed health authorities.
Fears have been raised that the "health premium" incentive could make it more likely that councils will adopt practices such as fluoridation.
Stephen Peckham, chairman of campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation, said he believed that the move to hand local authorities public health responsibilities for the first time since the 1970s was a positive step.
However he added: "I am concerned that there will be a pressure on councils to use the money for fluoridation, but what I hope is that local authorities will be much more focused on dealing with the problem of tooth decay through developing community-based approaches which have been proven to work in other areas. "I would hope that councils would use the opportunity to do something that is effective, and although we should never underestimate those pushing for fluoridation, I think it is about time that the role is taken away from the dentists."
Southampton's council group leaders all said that they would not be looking to introduce fluoridation if it is not already in place by the time South Central Strategic Health Authority is disbanded in spring 2013......................
posted by Bill at
9:40 AM
|
0 comments
Monday, January 23, 2012
Australia - Bourke Shire accused of illegally dumping fluoride
Bourke Shire accused of illegally dumping fluoride
By Robyn Herron
Posted January 23, 2012 12:08:10
The Bourke Shire Council has been accused of illegally dumping chemicals at its waste depot plant.
The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has charged the council with unlawfully transporting and disposing the chemical in October 2010.
The council says the fluoride was in its original packaging and shrink wrapped in plastic when it was buried four metres deep at the landfill.
The Bourke Shire's general manager, Geoff Wise, says the council had more of the chemical than it needed and did not realise that it was not permitted to dump the waste at the depot.
He says the sodium fluoride has since been removed.
The council will plead guilty to the charges and the matter has been adjourned in the Bourke Local Court until next month.
A EPA spokeswoman says the action is being taken as the council breached the Protection of the Environment Operations Act.
She says the depot cannot be lawfully used as a waste facility for sodium fluoride, which is classified as hazardous and dangerous.
The council faces a maximum penalty of $22,000.
Sodium fluoride is added to urban water supplies to improve people's dental health.
By Robyn Herron
Posted January 23, 2012 12:08:10
The Bourke Shire Council has been accused of illegally dumping chemicals at its waste depot plant.
The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has charged the council with unlawfully transporting and disposing the chemical in October 2010.
The council says the fluoride was in its original packaging and shrink wrapped in plastic when it was buried four metres deep at the landfill.
The Bourke Shire's general manager, Geoff Wise, says the council had more of the chemical than it needed and did not realise that it was not permitted to dump the waste at the depot.
He says the sodium fluoride has since been removed.
The council will plead guilty to the charges and the matter has been adjourned in the Bourke Local Court until next month.
A EPA spokeswoman says the action is being taken as the council breached the Protection of the Environment Operations Act.
She says the depot cannot be lawfully used as a waste facility for sodium fluoride, which is classified as hazardous and dangerous.
The council faces a maximum penalty of $22,000.
Sodium fluoride is added to urban water supplies to improve people's dental health.
posted by Bill at
9:45 AM
|
0 comments
USA - Question fluoride safety
Question fluoride safety
To the editor:
I have recently read two Open Forum letters stating that fluoride in our water system was important and the amount of fluoride in our drinking water was safe. Why is fluoride in our drinking system in the first place? The pat answer is, of course, to prevent tooth decay. This answer has been debunked for years. Just to name one source, "The Fluoride Deception" by Christopher Bryson will convince you otherwise. In his book, Mr. Bryson states: "In a society where asbestos, lead, silica, beryllium and many other carcinogens have found their way into the marketplace and then been recalled, one has to wonder why fluoride, so toxic it is used as a rat poison and pesticide, is embraced so thoroughly and so blindly." Because of limited space, I would add more sources but they would fill a phonebook.
The real reason for fluoride is, you guessed it, profit.
The government adds fluoride to drinking water supplies insisting that it is safe, beneficial and necessary. However, scientific evidence shows that fluoride is not safe to ingest and areas that fluoridate their drinking water supplies have higher rates of cavities, cancer, dental fluorosis, osteoporosis and other health problems. Because fluoride is a toxic waste from the aluminum industry, pharmaceutical companies and weapons manufacturers, it was expensive to dispose of properly. Solution: Add it to the water supply.
Fluoride continues to be added to water supplies all over North America. There is a growing resistance against adding toxic fluoride to our water supplies, but unfortunately, because fluoride has become "the lifeblood of the modern industrial economy. There is too much money at stake for those who endorse water fluoridation. The lies of the benefits of water fluoridation will continue to be fed to the public, not to encourage health benefits to a large number of people, but to profit the military-industrial complex.
The FDA, the guardians of our health who have given us such safety information as GMO's, aspartame and thimerosal as being safe for our health, do you really trust their judgment on fluoride?
Larry Wallace
Loveland
To the editor:
I have recently read two Open Forum letters stating that fluoride in our water system was important and the amount of fluoride in our drinking water was safe. Why is fluoride in our drinking system in the first place? The pat answer is, of course, to prevent tooth decay. This answer has been debunked for years. Just to name one source, "The Fluoride Deception" by Christopher Bryson will convince you otherwise. In his book, Mr. Bryson states: "In a society where asbestos, lead, silica, beryllium and many other carcinogens have found their way into the marketplace and then been recalled, one has to wonder why fluoride, so toxic it is used as a rat poison and pesticide, is embraced so thoroughly and so blindly." Because of limited space, I would add more sources but they would fill a phonebook.
The real reason for fluoride is, you guessed it, profit.
The government adds fluoride to drinking water supplies insisting that it is safe, beneficial and necessary. However, scientific evidence shows that fluoride is not safe to ingest and areas that fluoridate their drinking water supplies have higher rates of cavities, cancer, dental fluorosis, osteoporosis and other health problems. Because fluoride is a toxic waste from the aluminum industry, pharmaceutical companies and weapons manufacturers, it was expensive to dispose of properly. Solution: Add it to the water supply.
Fluoride continues to be added to water supplies all over North America. There is a growing resistance against adding toxic fluoride to our water supplies, but unfortunately, because fluoride has become "the lifeblood of the modern industrial economy. There is too much money at stake for those who endorse water fluoridation. The lies of the benefits of water fluoridation will continue to be fed to the public, not to encourage health benefits to a large number of people, but to profit the military-industrial complex.
The FDA, the guardians of our health who have given us such safety information as GMO's, aspartame and thimerosal as being safe for our health, do you really trust their judgment on fluoride?
Larry Wallace
Loveland
posted by Bill at
9:37 AM
|
0 comments
UK - Public health improvement plan given £2bn funding
Public health improvement plan given £2bn funding
Local authorities to get cash to promote breastfeeding and action on tooth decay
The Guardian, Monday 23 January 2012 Article history
Action to combat tooth decay will be funded under the 'health premium' incentive scheme. Photograph: Alamy
Councils will be able to get extra funding to encourage breast-feeding and combat child tooth decay as part of a government plan for local authorities to take a greater role in improving public health.
In a public health framework to be outlined on Monday by the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, local authorities will be alloted more than £2bn for the role. Councils that get the best results across 60 factors influencing health will be awarded extra funds under a so-called "health premium" incentive scheme.
Along with breast-feeding and tooth decay, they will be expected to tackle homelessness and the number of young people in the criminal justice system. A figure of £5.2bn will be spent on public health next year while the budget will increase in real terms each year after that, Lansley will say in a speech in London to the Faculty of Public Health.
"We all want to be healthy. No one wants an unhealthy existence," he will say. "And the job of the government – and my responsibility – is to help people live healthier lives. A failure to recognise that meant 2000-2010 was a decade in which public health was seen as relatively unimportant, something to be sidelined.
"Obesity rates from 2000-2010 rose from 21.2% to 26.1% so now over a quarter of adults are obese. Sexually transmitted infections, after the steep declines in the 80s to 90s, doubled in the subsequent decade.
"And health inequalities persist, with gaps in life expectancy of over a decade between people born in the richest areas and people born in the poorest."
Local authorities to get cash to promote breastfeeding and action on tooth decay
The Guardian, Monday 23 January 2012 Article history
Action to combat tooth decay will be funded under the 'health premium' incentive scheme. Photograph: Alamy
Councils will be able to get extra funding to encourage breast-feeding and combat child tooth decay as part of a government plan for local authorities to take a greater role in improving public health.
In a public health framework to be outlined on Monday by the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, local authorities will be alloted more than £2bn for the role. Councils that get the best results across 60 factors influencing health will be awarded extra funds under a so-called "health premium" incentive scheme.
Along with breast-feeding and tooth decay, they will be expected to tackle homelessness and the number of young people in the criminal justice system. A figure of £5.2bn will be spent on public health next year while the budget will increase in real terms each year after that, Lansley will say in a speech in London to the Faculty of Public Health.
"We all want to be healthy. No one wants an unhealthy existence," he will say. "And the job of the government – and my responsibility – is to help people live healthier lives. A failure to recognise that meant 2000-2010 was a decade in which public health was seen as relatively unimportant, something to be sidelined.
"Obesity rates from 2000-2010 rose from 21.2% to 26.1% so now over a quarter of adults are obese. Sexually transmitted infections, after the steep declines in the 80s to 90s, doubled in the subsequent decade.
"And health inequalities persist, with gaps in life expectancy of over a decade between people born in the richest areas and people born in the poorest."
posted by Bill at
9:33 AM
|
0 comments
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
UK - Blackburn dentist surgery named the best in the North West
Blackburn dentist surgery named the best in the North West
Friday 20th January 2012 in
By Neil Docking »
A DENTIST is celebrating a step forward for tooth care in East Lancashire after his surgery was named the best in the North West.
East Lancashire is known to have some of the worst dental health in the UK, with exceptionally high rates of tooth decay......
How many more places have the worst dental health are there?
Friday 20th January 2012 in
By Neil Docking »
A DENTIST is celebrating a step forward for tooth care in East Lancashire after his surgery was named the best in the North West.
East Lancashire is known to have some of the worst dental health in the UK, with exceptionally high rates of tooth decay......
How many more places have the worst dental health are there?
posted by Bill at
10:17 AM
|
1 comments
Friday, January 20, 2012
USA - re Statistics Show Fluoridation Fails New York State
More Statistics Show Fluoridation Fails New York State
NYS Department of Health statistics reveal that, even when water is fluoridated, cavity-rates are extremely high in low-income third-graders. (2) For example:
85% of low-income third graders have tooth decay in Wayne County (74% fluoridated)
83% in Ontario County (61% fluoridated)
82% in Cayuga County (not fluoridated)
82% in Allegheny County (14% fluoridated)
81% in Livingston County (55% fluoridated)
67% in Schuyler County (not fluoridated)
58% in Nassau County (not fluoridated)
Fluoridation not only fails New York State but nationally children, the elderly and poor lack dental care. The General Accounting Office estimates that 6.5 million children aged 2 through 18 in Medicaid had untreated tooth decay in 2005. (3)
Oral health complications may be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.
Annually, 164 million work hours and 51 million school hours are lost due to dental problems, according to the Institute of Medicine. (4) Also, a 2008 study of the armed forces reveals 52% of new recruits had oral health problems needing urgent attention, reports the Pew Charitable Trust.
"The American economy is hurt by dentists' refusal to treat low-income Americans and by organized dentistry's lobbying to outlaw cheaper dental care by viable dental professionals, such as dental therapists," says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. "Fluoridation is a false concept that must be abandoned."
NYS Department of Health statistics reveal that, even when water is fluoridated, cavity-rates are extremely high in low-income third-graders. (2) For example:
85% of low-income third graders have tooth decay in Wayne County (74% fluoridated)
83% in Ontario County (61% fluoridated)
82% in Cayuga County (not fluoridated)
82% in Allegheny County (14% fluoridated)
81% in Livingston County (55% fluoridated)
67% in Schuyler County (not fluoridated)
58% in Nassau County (not fluoridated)
Fluoridation not only fails New York State but nationally children, the elderly and poor lack dental care. The General Accounting Office estimates that 6.5 million children aged 2 through 18 in Medicaid had untreated tooth decay in 2005. (3)
Oral health complications may be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.
Annually, 164 million work hours and 51 million school hours are lost due to dental problems, according to the Institute of Medicine. (4) Also, a 2008 study of the armed forces reveals 52% of new recruits had oral health problems needing urgent attention, reports the Pew Charitable Trust.
"The American economy is hurt by dentists' refusal to treat low-income Americans and by organized dentistry's lobbying to outlaw cheaper dental care by viable dental professionals, such as dental therapists," says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. "Fluoridation is a false concept that must be abandoned."
posted by Bill at
1:19 PM
|
0 comments
USA - Rethink fluoride in Florida’s water
Rethink fluoride in Florida’s water
By Our Stance
Updated: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 21:01
Adding fluoride to tap water has been a contentious public health practice in the United States since it began in the 1940s. Although it is hailed by governments, dentists and physicians as an affordable treatment against cavities, health activists argue water fluoridation is doing more harm than good.
Back in October, Pinellas County commissioners sided against groups like the American Dental Association by voting to remove fluoride added to the county's water supply. Despite derision from some medical professionals, the decision should ultimately be praised for giving power back to the people, allowing individuals the choice concerning their medical treatment.
After all, fluoride is the only medication that is forced on the public via tap water. This presents the problem of dosing control because fluoride exposure is related to how much water a person ingests. Infants and children are particularly at risk for getting too much – about 40 percent of adolescents in the U.S. have dental fluorosis, white spots that appear on the teeth from too much fluoride, according to USA Today.
The possible health risks associated with fluoride should be enough for public officials across Florida to reconsider adding it to everyone's daily intake. A study published just this month in Nuclear Medicine Communications reveals a scary link between vascular fluoride uptake and cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death worldwide.
Scientific American reported in 2008 that "recent studies suggest that over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland." Overexposure to fluoride, the most consumed drug in the U.S., may even affect intelligence among children, according to a peer-reviewed study published in Environmental Health Perspectives.
A Harvard School of Dental Health study also indicated "that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of 5 and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma," a type of dangerous bone cancer, according to The Guardian.
These risks simply aren't worth the benefit fluoride has in preventing cavities, and medicating the public with a substance that is proven hazardous is not a proper solution to provide affordable dental healthcare.
Products like toothpaste and mouthwash can easily be used as topical forms of fluoride treatment for healthy teeth. Since these treatments are not ingested, they do not pose the systemic risks that may come from ingesting too much fluoride.
Besides, for the second year in a row, Florida earned an "F" for children's dental care from the Pew Center on the States, according to The Gainseville Sun. This is despite widespread water fluoridation in our state.
It wasn't until 2004 that Orange County joined the water-fluoridation bandwagon. It is not too late to consider ditching the practice and replacing it with better access to dental care for Floridians.
By Our Stance
Updated: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 21:01
Adding fluoride to tap water has been a contentious public health practice in the United States since it began in the 1940s. Although it is hailed by governments, dentists and physicians as an affordable treatment against cavities, health activists argue water fluoridation is doing more harm than good.
Back in October, Pinellas County commissioners sided against groups like the American Dental Association by voting to remove fluoride added to the county's water supply. Despite derision from some medical professionals, the decision should ultimately be praised for giving power back to the people, allowing individuals the choice concerning their medical treatment.
After all, fluoride is the only medication that is forced on the public via tap water. This presents the problem of dosing control because fluoride exposure is related to how much water a person ingests. Infants and children are particularly at risk for getting too much – about 40 percent of adolescents in the U.S. have dental fluorosis, white spots that appear on the teeth from too much fluoride, according to USA Today.
The possible health risks associated with fluoride should be enough for public officials across Florida to reconsider adding it to everyone's daily intake. A study published just this month in Nuclear Medicine Communications reveals a scary link between vascular fluoride uptake and cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death worldwide.
Scientific American reported in 2008 that "recent studies suggest that over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland." Overexposure to fluoride, the most consumed drug in the U.S., may even affect intelligence among children, according to a peer-reviewed study published in Environmental Health Perspectives.
A Harvard School of Dental Health study also indicated "that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of 5 and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma," a type of dangerous bone cancer, according to The Guardian.
These risks simply aren't worth the benefit fluoride has in preventing cavities, and medicating the public with a substance that is proven hazardous is not a proper solution to provide affordable dental healthcare.
Products like toothpaste and mouthwash can easily be used as topical forms of fluoride treatment for healthy teeth. Since these treatments are not ingested, they do not pose the systemic risks that may come from ingesting too much fluoride.
Besides, for the second year in a row, Florida earned an "F" for children's dental care from the Pew Center on the States, according to The Gainseville Sun. This is despite widespread water fluoridation in our state.
It wasn't until 2004 that Orange County joined the water-fluoridation bandwagon. It is not too late to consider ditching the practice and replacing it with better access to dental care for Floridians.
posted by Bill at
1:18 PM
|
0 comments
Uk - Daily Echo letters
Fluoridation really is a toxic medication for the masses
AK Roberts would have done well to reconsider the definition of a medicine before dismissing opponents of fluoridation.
The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) defines a medicine as "any substance or combination of substances as having properties for treating or PREVENTING disease in humans."
The toxic fluorosilicate chemicals added to public drinking water to prevent dental disease clearly fulfill that definition, and water fluoridation is therefore mass medication.
If Mr Roberts is so concerned about fairness, he could make a more positive contribution by considering the virtues of targeted ways of delivering fluoride to those who want it instead of defending an outdated and scientifically discredited practice with known health risks that is forced on entire communities.
In medical ethics, "no" means "no"; no A-level chemistry or medical qualification is required and no reason need be given to refuse medication or treatment. If Mr Roberts has so much faith in the SHA, presumably he would also be happy to trust the medical "experts" who are calling for lithium and statins to be added to our water supply in the guise of a public health measure?
Other countries in Europe do not fluoridate or chlorinate their water for good reason; neither is safe or effective, and the health effects of the chemical mix are unknown. France and Germany for example use ozone to purify their water, as it is a cheaper, much safer alternative to poisonous chlorine, known since the 1960s to be the basic cause of colon cancer, arteriosclerosis, heart attacks and strokes (Dr Joseph Price).
We should not be forced to accept the decision of the SHA when we have so much evidence they are wrong. I prefer to place my trust in the research of eminent EPA scientists Dr William Hirzy and Dr Robert Carton, who concluded the only safe level of fluoride, particularly for babies, is ZERO.
CAROL SCARBOROUGH, Southampton.
Adding fluoride goes against human rights
FLUORIDE is still to be controversially added to our water.
Whether it is right or wrong is not the issue, we have basic human rights that say we do not have to have anything forced into our bodies without our consent.
We cannot turn the clock back to the days when the powers that be did what they liked with our lives. We have a voice now and opinions which should be taken into account when they
make these BIG decisions.
I, like thousands of other people in the area, have a chronic blood condition. Can they assure me and all the others like me with many other conditions that this is not going to exacerbate our conditions?
We do not need to be told what to do by someone who does not even live in our area.
Let them vote to have it in their area.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED.
New petition PM for fluoride debate
I RECENTLY wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, questioning his Big Society and "We are all in it together" statement. I made reference to our Echo's Great Fluoride Debate and sent him my last letter, which was published by the Echo, opposing the introduction of fluoride chemical into Hampshire's water supply.
I asked if he would please write to the Echo's Letterbox and explain why he has completely ignored the 10,000 signature petition handed in to No 10 by the Hampshire Against Fluoride leaders on behalf of our citizens, bearing in mind our concern that we don't appear to be a part of his Big Society and also that the 72 per cent of anti-fluoride protesters would welcome his views on the subject.
I received an official reply on behalf of Mr C thanking me for my time and trouble, from a grateful Prime Minister who requested my letter be forwarded to the Dept of Health so they are aware of my views.
However, not to be bettered, I am now 72 per cent convinced that action speaks louder than words.
Gordon Brown and Mr Cameron once said "Let the people decide." Seventy-two per cent of our citizens have decided "No to fluoride."
Those who wish to bury then-heads in the sand must pay the price for their indifference. Moving the goalposts, thus allowing the SHA time to complete their obnoxious task, is no credit to our Prime Minister. The SHA are to be disbanded at the end of the year, they cannot be brought to task should illness in years to come be attributed to their mass medication of the people.
Democracy itself has become the first victim. Our country is certainly on the decline when we no longer have a say in what is best for our children and ourselves. Mass medication is criminal and obscene. Fluoride is a poison and should not be added to our water supply.
Sugar is one of the major factors in tooth decay. Children will always drink fizzy drinks and eat sweets.
The health authority and Government are responsible for not addressing the problem at source. Cigarettes and alcohol receive more warnings on their packaging. Why not "This drink will rot your teeth"?
So where dp we go from here? I believe Nikki Sinclaire, MEP, has the answer. Her 120,000-signature petition forced the Government to debate a referendum on Europe. Our anti-fluoride campaign can also force a Government debate.
Our only option is to make sure David Cameron is totally aware that Southampton citizens will not be forced into drinking fluoridated water.
Please send your letters to: David Cameron, 10 Downing Street, SW1A 2AA. No to fluoride. All 100,000 to force a debate.
A WILLOTT, Southampton.
posted by Bill at
9:51 AM
|
0 comments
Thursday, January 19, 2012
USA - Laura Pressley For Austin City Council - "It's Not Clear Who The Council Is Representing"
Laura Pressley opposes fluoridation bids for a council seat in Austin.
posted by Bill at
9:41 AM
|
0 comments
Australia - Decaying standards in kids' teeth
Decaying standards in kids' teeth
CATHY SAUNDERS, The West Australian
January 19, 2012, 8:09 am
The link between infant diet, tooth health and obesity is under the microscope at a time when one in 10 children aged five have more than seven rotting teeth.
A joint Australian and US study by researchers will follow 1035 infants from birth to the age of three to examine the tie between early childhood feeding (including breastfeeding and food and beverage intake), obesity and dental health.
The study has been prompted partly by the fact that key messages for parents on how to ensure their children have healthy, white teeth are not sinking in.
Lead researcher Amit Arora, lecturer in oral health at Sydney University's Faculty of Dentistry, said the Child Dental Health Survey of Australia in 1996 found at least 40 per cent of six-year-olds had dental decay.
By the time the survey was repeated in 2002, the severity of the problem had increased and 45 per cent of five-year-olds had one or more decayed or missing teeth and 10 per cent had more than seven decayed teeth.
Children from disadvantaged areas had a higher incidence of decay. Moreover, a NSW child health survey in 2007 found about 40 per cent of five to six-year-olds had up to five decayed or missing teeth.
"That is a big burden when there are only 20 teeth in a baby's mouth," Dr Arora said.
It was assumed that breastfeeding was protective for an infant's teeth but the study, "Infant feeding including breastfeeding, and early childhood food and beverage intake: relationships with early childhood caries and obesity", would examine the assumption, he said.
To date, the infants have been followed from birth to 18 months. New funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council will enable them to continue to be followed for the next two years. They will undergo a dental examination at the age of three years, when they have all their baby teeth.
"The message that needs to go across to mums is that they should not be putting the baby to bed with a bottle of formula because the formula pools around the baby's teeth and that's when the decay process starts," Dr Arora said.
The study also showed most mothers started their infants on solid food by four to 4 1/2 months of age, beginning with baby cereals and canned fruits and vegetables and later introducing other foods.
"Further, some mums have introduced foods with sugar such as lollies and chocolates before the age of one year," he said.
They also fed them sugary drinks and cordials.
"So that message needs to go across to the mums too, not to give their babies sugary foods."
Some parents were also brushing their infant's teeth too late after the baby teeth erupted.
Dr Arora said diet and poor oral hygiene meant some children were having their teeth removed at a very young age. NSW statistics reveal the number of children under the age of five years admitted to hospital for tooth extraction because of dental decay rose by 90 per cent between 1989 and 2007. The annual cost of the hospital treatment alone in NSW is $3.5 million.
How long has NSW had water fluoridation?
Fluoride has been added to most water supplies in NSW, commencing with Yass in 1956.
In NSW alone there are more than 50 years of experience proving the effectiveness and safety of water fluoridation.
Most Australians have had water fluoridation for 25-50 years. NSW has one of the highest levels of water fluoridation (approximately 95% of the population has access to fluoridated water).
Shows fluoride in the water does not work. It does give children fluorosis and perhaps many other less than delightful side effects in the long term.
CATHY SAUNDERS, The West Australian
January 19, 2012, 8:09 am
The link between infant diet, tooth health and obesity is under the microscope at a time when one in 10 children aged five have more than seven rotting teeth.
A joint Australian and US study by researchers will follow 1035 infants from birth to the age of three to examine the tie between early childhood feeding (including breastfeeding and food and beverage intake), obesity and dental health.
The study has been prompted partly by the fact that key messages for parents on how to ensure their children have healthy, white teeth are not sinking in.
Lead researcher Amit Arora, lecturer in oral health at Sydney University's Faculty of Dentistry, said the Child Dental Health Survey of Australia in 1996 found at least 40 per cent of six-year-olds had dental decay.
By the time the survey was repeated in 2002, the severity of the problem had increased and 45 per cent of five-year-olds had one or more decayed or missing teeth and 10 per cent had more than seven decayed teeth.
Children from disadvantaged areas had a higher incidence of decay. Moreover, a NSW child health survey in 2007 found about 40 per cent of five to six-year-olds had up to five decayed or missing teeth.
"That is a big burden when there are only 20 teeth in a baby's mouth," Dr Arora said.
It was assumed that breastfeeding was protective for an infant's teeth but the study, "Infant feeding including breastfeeding, and early childhood food and beverage intake: relationships with early childhood caries and obesity", would examine the assumption, he said.
To date, the infants have been followed from birth to 18 months. New funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council will enable them to continue to be followed for the next two years. They will undergo a dental examination at the age of three years, when they have all their baby teeth.
"The message that needs to go across to mums is that they should not be putting the baby to bed with a bottle of formula because the formula pools around the baby's teeth and that's when the decay process starts," Dr Arora said.
The study also showed most mothers started their infants on solid food by four to 4 1/2 months of age, beginning with baby cereals and canned fruits and vegetables and later introducing other foods.
"Further, some mums have introduced foods with sugar such as lollies and chocolates before the age of one year," he said.
They also fed them sugary drinks and cordials.
"So that message needs to go across to the mums too, not to give their babies sugary foods."
Some parents were also brushing their infant's teeth too late after the baby teeth erupted.
Dr Arora said diet and poor oral hygiene meant some children were having their teeth removed at a very young age. NSW statistics reveal the number of children under the age of five years admitted to hospital for tooth extraction because of dental decay rose by 90 per cent between 1989 and 2007. The annual cost of the hospital treatment alone in NSW is $3.5 million.
How long has NSW had water fluoridation?
Fluoride has been added to most water supplies in NSW, commencing with Yass in 1956.
In NSW alone there are more than 50 years of experience proving the effectiveness and safety of water fluoridation.
Most Australians have had water fluoridation for 25-50 years. NSW has one of the highest levels of water fluoridation (approximately 95% of the population has access to fluoridated water).
Shows fluoride in the water does not work. It does give children fluorosis and perhaps many other less than delightful side effects in the long term.
posted by Bill at
9:15 AM
|
0 comments
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
UK - Daily Echo - Help needed over question put to panel over fluoride
Help needed over question put to panel over fluorideI WAS at the meeting when the decision to fluoridate our water supply was made.
During the meeting, a gentleman whose name I do not recall was seated on the left hand side of the table where the panel members were seated.
He was putting questions to one member of the panel regarding fluoride and I can remember that one of the questions was (or words to this effect) "Has anyone, anywhere in the world, sued the NHS for damage to their health caused by fluoridated water and
won?" The answer, hesitantly, was "Yes, but not very many".
I am not sure of this question word for word, but I am wondering if it would be possible for someone to somehow find out exactly how it was put to the member of the panel?
I should imagine that there would be a record of it somewhere. I have asked five other people who were at the meeting with me, also Anna and Stephen Peckham of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, but none of them recall this question being asked. Yet I am sure that it was.
DJ COVE (Mrs), Southampton.
If you have the time all 9 parts of the full video of when the decision was made is here
posted by Bill at
4:27 PM
|
0 comments
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Alex Jones Sodium Fluoride and the Forced Drugging of America 4/4
posted by Bill at
10:37 AM
|
0 comments
Remove Fluoride from your body / eating toothpaste / WATER POISONING CONSPIRACY / facts w chef
West Midlands waking up to the danger of fluoride?
posted by Bill at
10:29 AM
|
0 comments
UK - Bring your children to free dental drop-in sessions
Published on Monday 16 January 2012 15:10
Children and families are encouraged to attend free Dental Drop-in sessions at Sure Start Children’s Centres in Milton Keynes.
The drop-in sessions give the opportunity of a free dental check-up for children, who do not currently have an NHS dentist, and give their parents the chance of receiving general oral health advice and a chat with an NHS Dentist.
Mel Foxall from the Oral Health Promotion Team, said: “Our dental drop-in sessions at the Children’s Centres are a great way of helping families to develop good oral health for their children from an early age. I look forward to welcoming parents and their children to our sessions.”
Following an assessment, the dentist will apply fluoride varnish to the child’s teeth (in line with Department of Health recommendations). Fluoride varnish helps to prevent tooth decay and is only applied following parental consent. After their check-up, children are given a toothbrush pack and advice on how to maintain good oral health. Parents who attend the sessions will also be given up-to-date details of dentists who are currently able to take on new NHS patients.
Top tips for maintaining good oral health include, reducing the amount of sugar that you eat, keep sugary foods and drinks to mealtimes only, brush your teeth for two to three minutes, twice a day, with fluoride toothpaste and have your mouth checked regularly by your dentist.
Children and families are encouraged to attend free Dental Drop-in sessions at Sure Start Children’s Centres in Milton Keynes.
The drop-in sessions give the opportunity of a free dental check-up for children, who do not currently have an NHS dentist, and give their parents the chance of receiving general oral health advice and a chat with an NHS Dentist.
Mel Foxall from the Oral Health Promotion Team, said: “Our dental drop-in sessions at the Children’s Centres are a great way of helping families to develop good oral health for their children from an early age. I look forward to welcoming parents and their children to our sessions.”
Following an assessment, the dentist will apply fluoride varnish to the child’s teeth (in line with Department of Health recommendations). Fluoride varnish helps to prevent tooth decay and is only applied following parental consent. After their check-up, children are given a toothbrush pack and advice on how to maintain good oral health. Parents who attend the sessions will also be given up-to-date details of dentists who are currently able to take on new NHS patients.
Top tips for maintaining good oral health include, reducing the amount of sugar that you eat, keep sugary foods and drinks to mealtimes only, brush your teeth for two to three minutes, twice a day, with fluoride toothpaste and have your mouth checked regularly by your dentist.
posted by Bill at
9:59 AM
|
1 comments
Monday, January 16, 2012
USA - Moorhead mom concerned about health effects of fluoride in drinking water
Moorhead mom concerned about health effects of fluoride in drinking water
MOORHEAD - Jill Dobis doesn’t drink her water out of the tap anymore. Instead, she buys filtered water along with her groceries for her family’s drinking and cooking needs.
By: Patrick Springer, INFORUM
MOORHEAD - Jill Dobis doesn’t drink her water out of the tap anymore. Instead, she buys filtered water along with her groceries for her family’s drinking and cooking needs.
The Moorhead mother of two teenagers is concerned about possible harmful health effects from fluoride, which Minnesota law requires to be added to community drinking water to protect teeth from decay.
“I want to see that law changed,” Dobis says. “It’s ridiculous. We should have the choice of whether to take a drug or not.”
Starting in the 1950s, fluoride was added to drinking water in the United States to protect teeth. Since 1962 the U.S. Public Health Service has recommended community drinking water within a prescribed range.
In North Dakota, the state leaves to municipalities the decision of whether to fluoridate drinking water, but a state health official estimates that more than 90 percent of the population drinks fluoridated water.
The Centers for Disease Control regards fluoridated drinking water, and the sharp reduction in tooth decay it is largely credited with achieving, as one of the nation’s top 10 public health achievements.
An impressive list of health agencies and organizations – including the American Medical Association, U.S. Surgeon General, American Dental Association among many others – recommend fluoridating drinking water as an effective way to improve dental health.
Yet the practice has long faced opposition, and in recent years a growing list of cities in the United States and especially Canada has opted to stop adding fluoride to drinking water.
A year ago, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as well as the Environmental Protection Agency jointly proposed reducing the recommended fluoride levels in drinking water.
The proposed lower standard recognizes that the population is exposed to fluoride from sources other than drinking water, including food and beverages as well as the environment.
For decades, the government has recommended maintaining fluoride in drinking water between 0.7 and 1.2 parts per million. But, following research published by the National Academies of Science, the recommended standard would be capped at 0.7 parts per million.
For health reasons, the EPA does not allow fluoride levels in drinking water to exceed 4 parts per million.
Both Fargo and Moorhead maintain a fluoride concentration at 1.2 parts per million, the level mandated in Minnesota, and the top of the current recommended range.
Ironically, too much fluoride, especially for children, can cause mottled or discolored teeth. More seriously, studies have linked fluoride to neurological problems, brittle bones and other ailments.
“The damage it causes is irreversible,” Dobis says, citing research she has read, including a recent book, “The Case Against Fluoride.”
MOORHEAD - Jill Dobis doesn’t drink her water out of the tap anymore. Instead, she buys filtered water along with her groceries for her family’s drinking and cooking needs.
By: Patrick Springer, INFORUM
MOORHEAD - Jill Dobis doesn’t drink her water out of the tap anymore. Instead, she buys filtered water along with her groceries for her family’s drinking and cooking needs.
The Moorhead mother of two teenagers is concerned about possible harmful health effects from fluoride, which Minnesota law requires to be added to community drinking water to protect teeth from decay.
“I want to see that law changed,” Dobis says. “It’s ridiculous. We should have the choice of whether to take a drug or not.”
Starting in the 1950s, fluoride was added to drinking water in the United States to protect teeth. Since 1962 the U.S. Public Health Service has recommended community drinking water within a prescribed range.
In North Dakota, the state leaves to municipalities the decision of whether to fluoridate drinking water, but a state health official estimates that more than 90 percent of the population drinks fluoridated water.
The Centers for Disease Control regards fluoridated drinking water, and the sharp reduction in tooth decay it is largely credited with achieving, as one of the nation’s top 10 public health achievements.
An impressive list of health agencies and organizations – including the American Medical Association, U.S. Surgeon General, American Dental Association among many others – recommend fluoridating drinking water as an effective way to improve dental health.
Yet the practice has long faced opposition, and in recent years a growing list of cities in the United States and especially Canada has opted to stop adding fluoride to drinking water.
A year ago, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as well as the Environmental Protection Agency jointly proposed reducing the recommended fluoride levels in drinking water.
The proposed lower standard recognizes that the population is exposed to fluoride from sources other than drinking water, including food and beverages as well as the environment.
For decades, the government has recommended maintaining fluoride in drinking water between 0.7 and 1.2 parts per million. But, following research published by the National Academies of Science, the recommended standard would be capped at 0.7 parts per million.
For health reasons, the EPA does not allow fluoride levels in drinking water to exceed 4 parts per million.
Both Fargo and Moorhead maintain a fluoride concentration at 1.2 parts per million, the level mandated in Minnesota, and the top of the current recommended range.
Ironically, too much fluoride, especially for children, can cause mottled or discolored teeth. More seriously, studies have linked fluoride to neurological problems, brittle bones and other ailments.
“The damage it causes is irreversible,” Dobis says, citing research she has read, including a recent book, “The Case Against Fluoride.”
posted by Bill at
9:58 AM
|
0 comments
USA - Cities year ahead of fed fluoride level
Cities year ahead of fed fluoride level
From Staff Reports
Cumberland Times-News The Cumberland Times-News Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:04 PM EST
CUMBERLAND — Although the federal government expects to announce a final recommendation concerning the preferred level of fluoride in drinking water this spring, both Cumberland and Frostburg have already reacted by lowering their levels.
About a year ago, a coalition of federal agencies suggested that the level of fluoride should be 0.7 milligrams per liter of water after a study found increasing levels can contribute to fluorosis, or discoloration of the teeth, among adolescents.
Since then, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been inundated with public comment. “Comments have been reviewed. We expect to have a final recommendation in the spring,” said Linda Orgain, health communications specialist for the CDC Oral Health Program in Atlanta, on Monday afternoon. She declined to provide any further information.
Both Cumberland and Frostburg took a proactive approach, however, and set their fluoride levels below the 0.7 goal. “We’ve been at .6 just to be a little bit below that,” said Rodney Marvin, superintendent of the Cumberland water filtration plant, on Tuesday. “We wanted to comply with what they recommended.”
Marvin said that the city lowered its levels Jan. 21, 2011, with the approval of the Allegany County Health Department, Maryland Department of the Environment and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The city’s drinking water supplies at Lakes Koon and Gordon are located in Bedford County, Pa.
When the draft recommendation was made last year, the city’s fluoride range was .8 to 1.3 milligrams per liter, Marvin said. At that time, city officials had not voiced their intent to lower the levels.
Frostburg officials, however, indicated last year that they were adjusting their fluoride levels to meet the new standard, even though it was not in effect yet....
From Staff Reports
Cumberland Times-News The Cumberland Times-News Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:04 PM EST
CUMBERLAND — Although the federal government expects to announce a final recommendation concerning the preferred level of fluoride in drinking water this spring, both Cumberland and Frostburg have already reacted by lowering their levels.
About a year ago, a coalition of federal agencies suggested that the level of fluoride should be 0.7 milligrams per liter of water after a study found increasing levels can contribute to fluorosis, or discoloration of the teeth, among adolescents.
Since then, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been inundated with public comment. “Comments have been reviewed. We expect to have a final recommendation in the spring,” said Linda Orgain, health communications specialist for the CDC Oral Health Program in Atlanta, on Monday afternoon. She declined to provide any further information.
Both Cumberland and Frostburg took a proactive approach, however, and set their fluoride levels below the 0.7 goal. “We’ve been at .6 just to be a little bit below that,” said Rodney Marvin, superintendent of the Cumberland water filtration plant, on Tuesday. “We wanted to comply with what they recommended.”
Marvin said that the city lowered its levels Jan. 21, 2011, with the approval of the Allegany County Health Department, Maryland Department of the Environment and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The city’s drinking water supplies at Lakes Koon and Gordon are located in Bedford County, Pa.
When the draft recommendation was made last year, the city’s fluoride range was .8 to 1.3 milligrams per liter, Marvin said. At that time, city officials had not voiced their intent to lower the levels.
Frostburg officials, however, indicated last year that they were adjusting their fluoride levels to meet the new standard, even though it was not in effect yet....
posted by Bill at
9:48 AM
|
0 comments
UK - Daily Echo Letters
The dangers of chemicals in water
Mr A K Roberts' letter "Let's talk fair about issue of fluoridation" (Letters, January 6.), compared adding the chemical fluoride to water with water chlorination.
This is not a fair comparison as chlorine is used to treat the water and make it safe to drink by killing harmful bacteria. But fluoride does not make the water safe to drink, it is used to treat people and bring about changes in the human body! A very different thing.
He wrote that fluoride is only added to tap water in small amounts, but chemicals can be powerful in tiny doses. For instance, just one part per billion of arsenic in water is estimated to
cause cancer in one in every 5,000 people. At only 50 parts per billion arsenic causes cancer in one in every 100 people. Source: National Resources Defense Council, New York.
Mr. Roberts said that nobody has yet said that fluoridation can kill anybody. He has not done his homework. In Hopper Bay, Alaska, one man died and 260 people were made ill after a fluoride overdose in tap water in May 1992. In July 1993 three kidney patients died after a fluoride overdose in Chicago, Illinois, USA. Visit fluoridealert.org/ accidents.htm.
A WILLS, Ruislip, Middlesex.
• JOHN Pope (In My View, January 5) draws attention to the way in which the SHA in its pursuit of compulsory fluoridation was careful to follow the "letter of the law".
In practice, that included holding a consultation which was nothing of the kind, the very consultation document issued being significantly defective and deliberately misleading. The authority was also allowed to send out prepaid postcards inviting the public to agree with their intentions, not to express their opinion of them.
It is instructive to note that when we ask why these aspects of the case were given scant attention we get no reply.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED.
Mr A K Roberts' letter "Let's talk fair about issue of fluoridation" (Letters, January 6.), compared adding the chemical fluoride to water with water chlorination.
This is not a fair comparison as chlorine is used to treat the water and make it safe to drink by killing harmful bacteria. But fluoride does not make the water safe to drink, it is used to treat people and bring about changes in the human body! A very different thing.
He wrote that fluoride is only added to tap water in small amounts, but chemicals can be powerful in tiny doses. For instance, just one part per billion of arsenic in water is estimated to
cause cancer in one in every 5,000 people. At only 50 parts per billion arsenic causes cancer in one in every 100 people. Source: National Resources Defense Council, New York.
Mr. Roberts said that nobody has yet said that fluoridation can kill anybody. He has not done his homework. In Hopper Bay, Alaska, one man died and 260 people were made ill after a fluoride overdose in tap water in May 1992. In July 1993 three kidney patients died after a fluoride overdose in Chicago, Illinois, USA. Visit fluoridealert.org/ accidents.htm.
A WILLS, Ruislip, Middlesex.
• JOHN Pope (In My View, January 5) draws attention to the way in which the SHA in its pursuit of compulsory fluoridation was careful to follow the "letter of the law".
In practice, that included holding a consultation which was nothing of the kind, the very consultation document issued being significantly defective and deliberately misleading. The authority was also allowed to send out prepaid postcards inviting the public to agree with their intentions, not to express their opinion of them.
It is instructive to note that when we ask why these aspects of the case were given scant attention we get no reply.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED.
posted by Bill at
9:33 AM
|
0 comments
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Study Shows Infants Are Affected by Fluoride
Study Shows Infants Are Affected by FluorideInfant formula mixed with fluoridated water has been shown to have adverse effects on an infant's dental health.
One study, published in The Journal of the American Dental Association, has found that even young infants are being affected by dental fluorosis. Researchers took into account the dental health of infants ages three to nine months, as well as children between the ages of 16 and 36 months. The study focused on infants and toddlers that were fed infant formula and other beverages mixed with fluoridated water.
The study concluded that, “Greater fluoride intakes from reconstituted powdered formulas (when participants were aged 3–9 months) and other water-added beverages (when participants were aged 3–9 months) increased fluorosis risk, as did higher dentifrice intake by participants when aged 16 to 36 months.” (Levy, Broffitt, and et al 1190-1201)...
posted by Bill at
9:40 AM
|
0 comments
Saturday, January 14, 2012
thy, Green Friendly Mouthwashes
Healthy, Green Friendly Mouthwashes
By EarthTalk
Jan 13, 2012 - 5:03:15 PM
HealthNewsDigest.com) - Many mainstream mouthwashes contain ingredients that you definitely don’t want to swallow, or even put down the drain. According to the Environmental Health Association of Nova Scotia’s (EHANS’s) “Guide to Less Toxic Products”—a free online resource designed to help consumers choose healthier, greener everyday products—conventional mouthwash is often alcohol-based, with an alcohol content ranging from 18-26 percent. “Products with alcohol can contribute to cancers of the mouth, tongue and throat when used regularly,” the guide reports, adding that a 2009 review in the Dental Journal of Australia confirmed the link between alcohol-based mouthwashes and an increased risk of oral cancers.
And you might want to avoid mouthwashes with fluoride (aka sodium fluoride). While fluoride may help fight cavities, ingesting too much of it has been linked to neurological problems and could be a cancer trigger as well. Common mouthwash sweeteners have also been linked to health problems: Saccharin is a suspected carcinogen while sucralose may trigger migraines. Synthetic colors can also be troublesome.
Some brands contain formaldehyde (aka quanternium-15). According to the National Cancer Institute, overexposure to formaldehyde can cause a burning sensation in the eyes, nose and throat as well as coughing, wheezing, nausea and skin irritation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers formaldehyde a “probable human carcinogen” and research has shown an association between long term workplace exposure and several specific cancers, including leukemia. Few of us are exposed to as much formaldehyde as, say, morticians, but does that mean its okay to swish it around in our mouths every day?
Other problematic ingredients in many conventional mouthwashes include sodium lauryl sulfate, polysorbate, cetylpyridinium chloride and benzalkonium chloride, all which have been shown to be toxic to organisms in the aquatic environments where these chemicals end up after we spit them out.......
By EarthTalk
Jan 13, 2012 - 5:03:15 PM
HealthNewsDigest.com) - Many mainstream mouthwashes contain ingredients that you definitely don’t want to swallow, or even put down the drain. According to the Environmental Health Association of Nova Scotia’s (EHANS’s) “Guide to Less Toxic Products”—a free online resource designed to help consumers choose healthier, greener everyday products—conventional mouthwash is often alcohol-based, with an alcohol content ranging from 18-26 percent. “Products with alcohol can contribute to cancers of the mouth, tongue and throat when used regularly,” the guide reports, adding that a 2009 review in the Dental Journal of Australia confirmed the link between alcohol-based mouthwashes and an increased risk of oral cancers.
And you might want to avoid mouthwashes with fluoride (aka sodium fluoride). While fluoride may help fight cavities, ingesting too much of it has been linked to neurological problems and could be a cancer trigger as well. Common mouthwash sweeteners have also been linked to health problems: Saccharin is a suspected carcinogen while sucralose may trigger migraines. Synthetic colors can also be troublesome.
Some brands contain formaldehyde (aka quanternium-15). According to the National Cancer Institute, overexposure to formaldehyde can cause a burning sensation in the eyes, nose and throat as well as coughing, wheezing, nausea and skin irritation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers formaldehyde a “probable human carcinogen” and research has shown an association between long term workplace exposure and several specific cancers, including leukemia. Few of us are exposed to as much formaldehyde as, say, morticians, but does that mean its okay to swish it around in our mouths every day?
Other problematic ingredients in many conventional mouthwashes include sodium lauryl sulfate, polysorbate, cetylpyridinium chloride and benzalkonium chloride, all which have been shown to be toxic to organisms in the aquatic environments where these chemicals end up after we spit them out.......
posted by Bill at
10:42 AM
|
0 comments
Canada - Residents want proof fluoride is safe
Residents want proof fluoride is safe
Peel Region’s fluoride debate hasn’t been fully flushed despite a decision last April to continue fluoridating our drinking water.
Councillors passed a motion yesterday urging Health Canada to classify fluoride for drinking water as a drug, and that the substance, used to prevent tooth decay, be assigned a “drug number” which, much like over-the-counter medication, lets users know the product is subject to stringent government regulations.
Regional councillors made the move following a lengthy debate and after hearing from several residents opposed to water fluoridation.
“We should not be afraid to ask questions and to challenge Health Canada (about fluoridation),” said Mississauga Ward 2 Councillor Pat Mullin. “If there is even one doubt, then we should be looking into this.”
In April, Peel Council voted to continue with fluoridation, but asked staff to looked into the possibility of reducing the amount of fluoride in Peel's drinking water from 0.7 milligrams per litre to 0.2, the minimum amount recommended by the province and federal government...............
Peel Region’s fluoride debate hasn’t been fully flushed despite a decision last April to continue fluoridating our drinking water.
Councillors passed a motion yesterday urging Health Canada to classify fluoride for drinking water as a drug, and that the substance, used to prevent tooth decay, be assigned a “drug number” which, much like over-the-counter medication, lets users know the product is subject to stringent government regulations.
Regional councillors made the move following a lengthy debate and after hearing from several residents opposed to water fluoridation.
“We should not be afraid to ask questions and to challenge Health Canada (about fluoridation),” said Mississauga Ward 2 Councillor Pat Mullin. “If there is even one doubt, then we should be looking into this.”
In April, Peel Council voted to continue with fluoridation, but asked staff to looked into the possibility of reducing the amount of fluoride in Peel's drinking water from 0.7 milligrams per litre to 0.2, the minimum amount recommended by the province and federal government...............
posted by Bill at
10:40 AM
|
0 comments
UK - Daily Echo Letters
Strong basis for opposition to fluoridationMR Roberts (Echo, January 6) characterises these opposed to water fluoridation as little more than conspiracy theorists who cannot recognise what he calls the "benefits' of fluoridation.
Yet in 2007, three of the UK's leading scientists - Professors Cheng, Chalmers and Sheldon -wrote an article for the British Medical Journal highlighting the weakness of the evidence on water fluoridation.
They concluded that it is not possible, based on existing research, to say fluoridation is either safe or effective. Since 2007, many more studies have been published raising concerns about the harms of water fluoridation, particularly excess consumption of fluoride
by babies and young children. Hampshire Against Fluoridation has always argued that there are strong scientific and ethical grounds for opposing water fluoridation. Our Scientific Advisory Panel includes a professor of oxicology, a doctor of dentistry, a professor of dentistry, a doctor of biology and a medical doctor. We know that there are safer and more effective alternatives to water fluoridation,
Mr Roberts may wish to acquaint himself with the hundreds of scientific papers that report the negative effects of water fluoridation rather than attack those people who raise objections to the proposed scheme here in Southampton.
Fluoride Opponents are well informed.I never cease to be amazed by people who seek to denigrate the intelligence and integrity of those of us who oppose water fluoridation such a one is Mr A K Roberts (Letters, January 6).
Presumably Mr Roberts read the letters printed in the Echo about fluoridation, the vast majority of which were well informed and the writers clearly not "obsessed with rumours and conspiracy theories".
They had taken the trouble to think outside of the box of antiquated medical dogma (see the report of the Safety of Water Fluoridation Questioned by EU Scientific Commission who described fluoridation as "a crude and rather ineffective form of systemic fluoride treatment to prevent dental caries without a detectable threshold for dental and bone damage").
He has clearly not made himself familiar with the experience of countries, such as the US, Australia and Eire where water has been fluoridated for decades and which are now deploring the state of children's teeth in areas where the costs of dental treatment are beyond parental means.
In some of these countries over 40 per cent of children suffer dental fluorosis (a visible sign the child has been overdosed/poisoned by fluoride). It will take a lifetime of expensive treatment to cover up the damage in the worst cases.
I wonder if he has taken the trouble to mull over the reasons given by other European governments when they decided not to fluoridate their water? They are very revealing!
Now to consider his points;
• My dictionary defines medicine as any drug or remedy for use in treating, preventing or alleviating the symptoms of disease. Fluoride is supposed to prevent caries so, if it is added to the public water supply which everyone is obliged to drink it becomes mass medication. Note also that hexafluorosilicic acid (the fluoride to be used in the water) is a classified poison and has no medical licence.
• We know that chlorine was used as a war weapon and are not thrilled to have it in our water but, until another practical method of preventing cholera, typhoid, dysentery, etc is discovered, it has to be tolerated. I understand a carbon filter can remove it, as can boiling the water or standing it in a refrigerator. These methods are ineffective for fluoride.
• Mr Roberts' percentages for other chemicals found in water are somewhat convoluted but, to the best of my belief, none are added deliberately and some are actually beneficial to health.
• Proven benefits? There is a great paucity of any scientific research into the benefits or harms of fluoride at low concentrations over a long period but a great deal is known about the devastating health effects of chronic poisoning. People who are to be exposed to fluoridated water over periods of ten, 20,30 years are likely to suffer similar conditions over a long period but no proper research has been done to measure tooth and bone damage, thyroid damage, kidney damage, brain damage or osteosarcoma in boys.
MRS A RICHARDS, Hayling Island.
posted by Bill at
10:09 AM
|
0 comments
Friday, January 13, 2012
USA - Nevada urges residents to improve oral health
Nevada urges residents to improve oral health
Updated: 1/12/2012 6:59:59 PM
While most of the county could probably benefit from taking a second look at the way they treat their teeth, some places have higher levels of tooth decay than others. For example, the Nevada Appeal reports that in the area, the rate of tooth decay and oral disease is higher than the rest of the country as a whole.
The news source recently ran an article to encourage Nevada residents to take care better care of their teeth by explaining some habits they should either pick up and those they should avoid.
"First, avoid tobacco. Smoking or chewing tobacco makes your breath stink and discolors your teeth, and tobacco use in any form - cigarette, pipes, and smokeless (spit) tobacco - increases the risk for gum disease, oral problems and throat cancers.
Second, limit snacks full of sugars and starches, which can contribute to tooth decay," according to the news source.
The Mayo Clinic recommends brushing twice a day, using a toothpaste that contains fluoride and a soft-bristled toothbrush. They also suggest getting buying a new brush every three or four months, or whenever the bristles become frayed.
Fluoridation is Required by Law
The 1999 Nevada State Legislature mandated that water purveyors in Nevada serving populations over 100,000 add fluoride to their drinking water. The City of Henderson and the Southern Nevada Water System began fluoridating drinking water on March 1, 2000 under the jurisdiction of the Nevada State Health Division. Nevada voters elected in November 2000 to continue fluoridation of the State's water supply based on the important benefits it provides to public health.
Fluoridated and still rotten teeth need more fluoride. Apparently you can't have too much!
Updated: 1/12/2012 6:59:59 PM
While most of the county could probably benefit from taking a second look at the way they treat their teeth, some places have higher levels of tooth decay than others. For example, the Nevada Appeal reports that in the area, the rate of tooth decay and oral disease is higher than the rest of the country as a whole.
The news source recently ran an article to encourage Nevada residents to take care better care of their teeth by explaining some habits they should either pick up and those they should avoid.
"First, avoid tobacco. Smoking or chewing tobacco makes your breath stink and discolors your teeth, and tobacco use in any form - cigarette, pipes, and smokeless (spit) tobacco - increases the risk for gum disease, oral problems and throat cancers.
Second, limit snacks full of sugars and starches, which can contribute to tooth decay," according to the news source.
The Mayo Clinic recommends brushing twice a day, using a toothpaste that contains fluoride and a soft-bristled toothbrush. They also suggest getting buying a new brush every three or four months, or whenever the bristles become frayed.
Fluoridation is Required by Law
The 1999 Nevada State Legislature mandated that water purveyors in Nevada serving populations over 100,000 add fluoride to their drinking water. The City of Henderson and the Southern Nevada Water System began fluoridating drinking water on March 1, 2000 under the jurisdiction of the Nevada State Health Division. Nevada voters elected in November 2000 to continue fluoridation of the State's water supply based on the important benefits it provides to public health.
Fluoridated and still rotten teeth need more fluoride. Apparently you can't have too much!
posted by Bill at
10:05 AM
|
0 comments
Canada - ‘Precautionary stance’ advocated
In response to your Dec. 30 column, “Fluoridation helps prevent tooth decay”:
Water fluoridation is an important issue. Since my retirement as a health professional, studying factors related to the health benefits of water has been an area of interest.
I totally agree with you with respect to researching this controversial issue, that “the quality and reliability of the information presented must be high.” I looked into the report from the Expert Panel assembled by Health Canada in 2007 that you referred to in your column.
Following your advice to “start by considering the source,” I found that four of the six Expert Panel members were from the dental profession and long-time advocates of water fluoridation. One panel member’s article, published in 1989 in the Journal For Public Health Dentistry, was ironically titled, “A Win for Fluoridation in Squamish, B.C.” I have to question — was the panel’s advice to Health Canada objective and without bias?
Dentists are, unquestionably, experts in oral health and disease; however, diagnosing disease in the rest of the body is outside their purview and expertise of practice. Unlike applying fluoride topically — toothpaste or fluoride treatments — drinking water as a source exposes the whole body to fluoride.
I would expect that the panel would include a broad base of expertise to address all body systems. I question: Were the impacts of fluoride on the entire body adequately addressed with two-thirds of the panel being dentists?
The effects of chronic, low-dose fluoride exposure on the body have been described by scientists from the National Research Council’s landmark review on fluoride, a Nobel laureate in medicine, as well as dentists, medical doctors and leading researchers in the field. In my research I found an overview of their findings outlined in the 2009, 28-minute online video “Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation.”.......
Water fluoridation is an important issue. Since my retirement as a health professional, studying factors related to the health benefits of water has been an area of interest.
I totally agree with you with respect to researching this controversial issue, that “the quality and reliability of the information presented must be high.” I looked into the report from the Expert Panel assembled by Health Canada in 2007 that you referred to in your column.
Following your advice to “start by considering the source,” I found that four of the six Expert Panel members were from the dental profession and long-time advocates of water fluoridation. One panel member’s article, published in 1989 in the Journal For Public Health Dentistry, was ironically titled, “A Win for Fluoridation in Squamish, B.C.” I have to question — was the panel’s advice to Health Canada objective and without bias?
Dentists are, unquestionably, experts in oral health and disease; however, diagnosing disease in the rest of the body is outside their purview and expertise of practice. Unlike applying fluoride topically — toothpaste or fluoride treatments — drinking water as a source exposes the whole body to fluoride.
I would expect that the panel would include a broad base of expertise to address all body systems. I question: Were the impacts of fluoride on the entire body adequately addressed with two-thirds of the panel being dentists?
The effects of chronic, low-dose fluoride exposure on the body have been described by scientists from the National Research Council’s landmark review on fluoride, a Nobel laureate in medicine, as well as dentists, medical doctors and leading researchers in the field. In my research I found an overview of their findings outlined in the 2009, 28-minute online video “Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation.”.......
posted by Bill at
10:01 AM
|
0 comments
Lorea - Dispute arises again over whether to fluoridate tap water
The nation is abuzz once again over whether the fluoridation of tap water should be expanded to the entire country for the sake of public health.
The issue came to a head as the Ministry of Health and Welfare announced on Tuesday that adding fluoride to tap water at a density of 0.8 ppm has proven effective in preventing dental cavities in children.
A research team from Wonkwang University studied 9,000 elementary school students divided into two groups ― one group living in areas with fluoridated tap water and the other living in areas without it. They found that those living with fluoridated tap water had a cavity average of 0.54 per child, compared to an average of 0.91 for children in non-fluoridation areas.....
The mad scheme is world wide.
The issue came to a head as the Ministry of Health and Welfare announced on Tuesday that adding fluoride to tap water at a density of 0.8 ppm has proven effective in preventing dental cavities in children.
A research team from Wonkwang University studied 9,000 elementary school students divided into two groups ― one group living in areas with fluoridated tap water and the other living in areas without it. They found that those living with fluoridated tap water had a cavity average of 0.54 per child, compared to an average of 0.91 for children in non-fluoridation areas.....
The mad scheme is world wide.
posted by Bill at
9:54 AM
|
0 comments
UK - Daily Echo letter
Why would anyone want fluoridation?I WOULD like to comment on the letter titled "Let's talk fair about issue of fluoridation", Daily Echo January 6 by Mr A K Roberts of Romsey.
1. Mr Roberts states that the term mass medication is not justified regarding fluoridation and that chlorine-based products added cause more serious disease. Well, we all know the chlorine isn't particularly good for us, but that is in our water to help kill any bugs. Also, why should we have fluoride added as well to help make our water even more toxic to drink?
2. He also says that there is intense focus on the possible side effects of fluoridation and a blind eye turned to the basic proven benefits. There is such a lot of evidence against fluoridation, and really very little for it. There are no benefits to putting it into our water supply.
3. Another comment was that the SHA approved fluoridation after careful expert examination, but most of them are not experts.
4. Also he states that we protesters have fallen for the popular conspiracy theory syndrome that the SHA are buying poison from evil manufacturers who can't dispose of it legally and adding it to our water. Well, conspiracies do happen, and in the case of fluoridation we protesters have told people the truth. The part Mr Roberts got right is that the SHA are buying a poison and dumping it into our water supply. Nobody has the right to put a toxic waste into our lifeline.
5. Another comment was that every letter we have written has a negative slant on fluoridation. Well, the answer to that is when we are trying to warn people about the bad effects of fluoride we all feel that without it added we will all benefit from drinking better quality water, I would say that was quite positive.
6. So, Mr Roberts, can you please answer one question: Why would anyone want a toxic chemical added to their water, that none of us will be able to boil out if we wanted to, that toxic chemical being fluoride? Nobody with any common sense can justify it in any way.
Most people of Southampton and surrounding areas do not want this mad scheme.
MRS K KINCHINGTON, Southampton.
posted by Bill at
9:47 AM
|
0 comments
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Australia - Uproar over fluoride in Melton and Moorabool
Uproar over fluoride in Melton and Moorabool
Health12 Jan 12 @ 08:00am by Ami Humpage
CALLS from Melton and Moorabool residents to choose whether their drinking water is fluoridated have been dampened by the Department for Health.
Western Water temporarily ceased fluoridation of drinking water in Melton and Moorabool shires in May 2011, but will resume the practice within the next two months.
Leader has been inundated with online comments from readers branding fluoridation as poisonous, toxic and unethical.
“Derek” called it a dying-out practice, while “Ann” said it was against medical ethics to medicate everyone. She went on to suggest that fluoride was a toxic industrial waste.
Rena Iliades suggested water fluoridation should be up to the consumer. Lesley McMillan agreed, stating it should be each individual’s choice.
Other residents like Sandra Camm say they are spending large amounts of money on filters and water tanks to remove fluoride from their drinking water.
Despite the negative response to reintroducing fluoride, Western Water and the Victorian Department of Health maintain fluoridation is safe and effective.
Department of Health spokesman Bram Alexander said there was no capacity for residents to be able to choose if their water was fluoridated or not.
“With the exception of dental fluorosis, scientific studies have not found any credible link between water fluoridation and adverse effects,” he said.
Mr Alexander said the safety of water fluoridation had been confirmed by the World Health Organisation and the National Health and Medical Research Council.
Should have thought fluorosis was enough to call a halt to the practice.
Health12 Jan 12 @ 08:00am by Ami Humpage
CALLS from Melton and Moorabool residents to choose whether their drinking water is fluoridated have been dampened by the Department for Health.
Western Water temporarily ceased fluoridation of drinking water in Melton and Moorabool shires in May 2011, but will resume the practice within the next two months.
Leader has been inundated with online comments from readers branding fluoridation as poisonous, toxic and unethical.
“Derek” called it a dying-out practice, while “Ann” said it was against medical ethics to medicate everyone. She went on to suggest that fluoride was a toxic industrial waste.
Rena Iliades suggested water fluoridation should be up to the consumer. Lesley McMillan agreed, stating it should be each individual’s choice.
Other residents like Sandra Camm say they are spending large amounts of money on filters and water tanks to remove fluoride from their drinking water.
Despite the negative response to reintroducing fluoride, Western Water and the Victorian Department of Health maintain fluoridation is safe and effective.
Department of Health spokesman Bram Alexander said there was no capacity for residents to be able to choose if their water was fluoridated or not.
“With the exception of dental fluorosis, scientific studies have not found any credible link between water fluoridation and adverse effects,” he said.
Mr Alexander said the safety of water fluoridation had been confirmed by the World Health Organisation and the National Health and Medical Research Council.
Should have thought fluorosis was enough to call a halt to the practice.
posted by Bill at
1:15 PM
|
0 comments
UK - Echo Letters
SOAPBOX: Fluoride in tap waterIncensed' at SHA pushing on with fluoridation
I REFER to your letter (January 4) headed "Poison allowed to invade our lives" and totally concur with the sentiments expressed.
I worry constantly and am incensed that the SHA shelters behind the powers handed to them and with, unbelievable contempt, deny the stated basic rights of the majority to enjoy a
water supply unpolluted by toxins.
I am also disappointed and angry that Southern Water appears to have simply "rolled over" and in response to my letter simply saying that they are bound by law and regulations to follow SHA instructions.
It is like an echo from the past
- "We only did what we were told..."
But perhaps those members of the SHA who cynically endorsed this vile scheme don't live within the designated area? Shame on them and those in power and authority who are letting them get away with it.
MAUREEN DARNELL, Southampton.
Adding fluoride to our water is 'obsolete1
LIKE Mr A Roberts (Letters, January 6), I top have concerns over fair play with regard to water fluoridation.
I am not a conspiracy theorist but am opposed to fluoridation for a number of very valid reasons.
Firstly, there is no high-quality evidence to support the practice. This is a fact and not an opinion. The "proven benefits" referred to by Mr Roberts are not backed up by scientific evidence.
The York Review found a surprising lack of good evidence to support claims made by proponents of fluoridation.
Hexafluorosilicic acid is, in fact, industrial grade fluoride and people are right to be concerned about this. I for one do not want to drink it.
Even more worrying, there are a number of studies published in quality, peer reviewed journals indicating that some infants will exceed recommended levels if consuming formula milk made up with fluoridated water.
Fluorosis - mottling of the teeth as a result of too much fluoride - is a growing problem in fluoridated countries which is why so many places have lowered the levels of fluoride permitted in water or abandoned this antiquated practice completely.
Scotland, for example, has helped tackle the problem of poor dental health in children by using an effective, targeted approach which involves varnishes and educational
interventions at the nursery stage.
I may not have an A level in chemistry but I know that it is not good practice to add fluoride to drinking water. I live in the area, I pay for my water, I have researched the evidence, attended every consultation question and answer event and Hampshire County Council's scrutiny process and my opinion is as valid as anyone else's.
It is a disgrace that unelected SHA board members feel they have the right to force this scheme upon local people.
I prefer to place my trust in world-renowned scientists such as Nobel Prize winner Dr Arvid Carlsson who called the practice of water fluoridation "obsolete".
ANNA PECKHAM, Southampton.
posted by Bill at
9:38 AM
|
0 comments
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
UK - House of Lords
Fluoridation
Questions
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 7 February (WA 18-19) and 24 November (WA 275), (1) whether they share the concerns about dental fluorosis that led the Republic of Ireland to lower the concentration of added fluoride in mains water to 0.7 parts per million in 2007, and (2) what relevance the use of more fluoride supplements by the population in the United States has to the incidence of dental fluorosis in the United Kingdom.[HL14261]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): We are not aware of any evidence from the Republic of Ireland to show that levels of dental fluorosis were unacceptable when water supplies were fluoridated at 1 part per million. We cannot see any relevance between the use of more fluoride supplements by the population in the United States and the incidence of dental fluorosis in the United Kingdom. We are awaiting publication of a research study into the prevalence and aesthetic acceptability of dental fluorosis before considering whether the use of a 1 part per million concentration here should be reviewed.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 17 October (WA 14), 1 November (WA 233-4) and 24 November (WA 275-6) concerning medicinal products, what is their authority for the view that fluoride when added to mains water with the intention of protecting teeth does not constitute a medical treatment. [HL14262]
Earl Howe: The authority for our judgment is the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency's (MHRA) view that fluoride added to drinking water is not a medical product. We consider that, where there is no physical contact, surgical or otherwise, made with the patient, the critical factor in judging whether a medical treatment is occurring is whether a medical product as defined by the MHRA is involved.
10 Jan 2012 : Column WA34
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 23 May (WA 378-9), whether they intend to commission a larger study, with power to detect small effects, to develop further the analyses from the first report of the Newcastle study into the bioavailability of fluoride in water in 2004, which found a difference in absorption in plasma fluoride between naturally and artificially fluoridated water.[HL14263]
Earl Howe: The department has no current plans to commission a further study on the bioavailability of fluoride in drinking water. The department's National Institute for Health Research welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including water fluoridation. These applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the scientific quality of the proposals made.
Questions
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 7 February (WA 18-19) and 24 November (WA 275), (1) whether they share the concerns about dental fluorosis that led the Republic of Ireland to lower the concentration of added fluoride in mains water to 0.7 parts per million in 2007, and (2) what relevance the use of more fluoride supplements by the population in the United States has to the incidence of dental fluorosis in the United Kingdom.[HL14261]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): We are not aware of any evidence from the Republic of Ireland to show that levels of dental fluorosis were unacceptable when water supplies were fluoridated at 1 part per million. We cannot see any relevance between the use of more fluoride supplements by the population in the United States and the incidence of dental fluorosis in the United Kingdom. We are awaiting publication of a research study into the prevalence and aesthetic acceptability of dental fluorosis before considering whether the use of a 1 part per million concentration here should be reviewed.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 17 October (WA 14), 1 November (WA 233-4) and 24 November (WA 275-6) concerning medicinal products, what is their authority for the view that fluoride when added to mains water with the intention of protecting teeth does not constitute a medical treatment. [HL14262]
Earl Howe: The authority for our judgment is the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency's (MHRA) view that fluoride added to drinking water is not a medical product. We consider that, where there is no physical contact, surgical or otherwise, made with the patient, the critical factor in judging whether a medical treatment is occurring is whether a medical product as defined by the MHRA is involved.
10 Jan 2012 : Column WA34
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 23 May (WA 378-9), whether they intend to commission a larger study, with power to detect small effects, to develop further the analyses from the first report of the Newcastle study into the bioavailability of fluoride in water in 2004, which found a difference in absorption in plasma fluoride between naturally and artificially fluoridated water.[HL14263]
Earl Howe: The department has no current plans to commission a further study on the bioavailability of fluoride in drinking water. The department's National Institute for Health Research welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including water fluoridation. These applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the scientific quality of the proposals made.
posted by Bill at
10:40 AM
|
0 comments
Fiji - Health to crack down on non-fluoridated toothpaste
Health to crack down on non-fluoridated toothpaste
Avinesh Gopal
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
SOME brands of toothpaste that do not contain fluoride will be removed from supermarket shelves by health inspectors.
It is the result of the First Toothpaste Standard for Fiji endorsed by Cabinet last year and which came into effect on January 1.
The removal of the toothpaste brands is part of the Trade Standards and Quality Control Decree of 1992.
One of the major reasons why health authorities want only fluoridated toothpaste is the high cases of dental carries in children below six years old.
According to the 2004 oral health survey, 86 per cent of children below six years of age were found to have dental carries.....
Weird story, 86% - there must be a reason apart from using non-fluoridated toothpaste.
Avinesh Gopal
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
SOME brands of toothpaste that do not contain fluoride will be removed from supermarket shelves by health inspectors.
It is the result of the First Toothpaste Standard for Fiji endorsed by Cabinet last year and which came into effect on January 1.
The removal of the toothpaste brands is part of the Trade Standards and Quality Control Decree of 1992.
One of the major reasons why health authorities want only fluoridated toothpaste is the high cases of dental carries in children below six years old.
According to the 2004 oral health survey, 86 per cent of children below six years of age were found to have dental carries.....
Weird story, 86% - there must be a reason apart from using non-fluoridated toothpaste.
posted by Bill at
10:08 AM
|
0 comments
UK - Echo letter
Anti-fluoride lobby will not be silencedMR A K Roberts (Letters, January 6) has a poor opinion of anybody who is against fluoridation.
In November 2009 he wrote to the Echo claiming we were zealots. I wrote back then asking if AK Roberts was aware that his insignificant drop of fluoride can cause mottling of the teeth and that dentists charge thousands of pounds to hide with veneers? Would he like his children to suffer that because a few families do not teach their young to clean their teeth or eat sensibly? He mentions chlorine but that is there to treat the water.
It too has its dangers, it's known to cause colon cancer but if you are aware of that and there is colon cancer in your family you can either buy a simple filter, let the water stand or boil it. Fluoride is very different. Is he aware that tonnes of Hexafluorosilicic acid
contaminated with two per cent of toxic metals and trace amounts of radioactive isotopes are used to fluoridate water.
As for the Echo not publishing pro fluoridation letters perhaps they don't get many. Even some of the people connected with the PCT exposed to one-sided propaganda have expressed their support for us. There are many extremely qualified professors who are adamantly opposed to fluoridation as well as concerned citizens who attended consultation meetings.
Hampshire County Council set up a committee to thoroughly examine the evidence and they too voted against supporting the Strategic Health Authority.
I doubt if any of this will change your mind Mr Roberts but the public are waking up and more and more communities are rejecting fluoridation.
BILL EDMUNDS, Cadnam.
posted by Bill at
9:58 AM
|
0 comments
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Debate: Is fluoridation of our water acceptable?
Debate for and against fluoridation
Debate: Is fluoridation of our water acceptable?
Author: Alisdair McKendrick, Elizabeth McDonagh
Debate: Is fluoridation of our water acceptable?
Author: Alisdair McKendrick, Elizabeth McDonagh
posted by Bill at
1:35 PM
|
0 comments
Canada - Medical officer defends fluoride
Medical officer defends fluoride
The Windsor Star January 10, 2012 3:12 AM
There is no credible evidence that adding fluoride to drinking water is harmful or contributes to the concentration of fluoride in the waterways, Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Allen Heimann told Amherstburg council Monday.
There has been recent concern that since fluoride is available in many over-the-counter products like toothpaste, municipalities don't need to add fluoride to the water.
Also, some residents say that fluoride is toxic and shouldn't be added to the water.
Lakeshore recently ceased adding it to drinking water and the Essex County environment committee has asked municipalities to rethink using it.
Heimann said fluoridation is the most economical way to keep teeth healthy.
For every $1 invested, $38 is saved in future dental costs, he said.
He said 33 per cent of area residents don't have dental insurance and the numbers are especially high in the immigrant community.
He has to I should imagine as it is most likely in his job description as it is here in the UK.
The Windsor Star January 10, 2012 3:12 AM
There is no credible evidence that adding fluoride to drinking water is harmful or contributes to the concentration of fluoride in the waterways, Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Allen Heimann told Amherstburg council Monday.
There has been recent concern that since fluoride is available in many over-the-counter products like toothpaste, municipalities don't need to add fluoride to the water.
Also, some residents say that fluoride is toxic and shouldn't be added to the water.
Lakeshore recently ceased adding it to drinking water and the Essex County environment committee has asked municipalities to rethink using it.
Heimann said fluoridation is the most economical way to keep teeth healthy.
For every $1 invested, $38 is saved in future dental costs, he said.
He said 33 per cent of area residents don't have dental insurance and the numbers are especially high in the immigrant community.
He has to I should imagine as it is most likely in his job description as it is here in the UK.
posted by Bill at
9:58 AM
|
0 comments
Canada BC - Terrace water contains toxic substances
Terrace water contains toxic substances
Published: January 09, 2012
Dear Sir:
The reason for this letter is to inform the people of Terrace about a serious public health issue. Most people realize that our bodies are roughly two thirds water so we need to drink enough water every day to stay healthy. Unfortunately, certain types of water are really detrimental to our health. Terrace tap water is one of them.
The reason why our municipal tap water is so unhealthy is that chlorine and fluoride are added to the water. My focus of this letter is in regards to the addition of unnecessary and harmful fluoride to the water.
In Terrace, Fluorosilicic Acid is added to our municipal water supply which is a byproduct of industrial waste. There is plenty of research to show that fluoride is toxic and detrimental to our health. It is so toxic that it can eat through steel, iron, and aluminum. Fluoride is one of the most toxic substances on earth.
A study by the National Cancer Institute found that cancer in the bones was 50% higher in communities where fluoride was added to the water, when compared to communities that don’t have fluoride. In 1992 the New Jersey Department of Health published a study showing cancer rates of 3-7 times higher in males in areas with fluoride added, as compared to non-fluoridated communities. Several studies have also shown that fluoride causes damage to our genetic structure and thyroid gland.
Too much fluoride can also build up in the bones, a condition I have seen in several patients in Terrace. This leads to brittle bones and mottled tooth enamel. Fluoride also causes abnormal calcification of the ligaments around the spine, ribs and pelvis, pulmonary fibrosis (lung damage), anemia (blood disorder), liver damage and heart problems.
Fluoride added to the water also can cause damage to the nervous system, especially the brain, in children. In January 2011, a study from the scientific journal Neurologia found that Fluoride is toxic and passes into the brain causing nervous system damage. The authors concluded that people should avoid all forms of fluoride including those in toothpaste and water.
The problem with adding fluoride to the water is that there is no way to control the amount a person is ingesting. The more water a person drinks, the more fluoride they are going to be exposed to. Also, fluoride becomes an airborne gas when water is heated, as in the bath or shower leading to a further increase in exposure.
As if this problem is not bad enough in adults, in infants, especially, it is more of a concern because most baby formulas are already contaminated with fluoride, and then if the formula is made with tap water they are getting far more than they should. There is no established safe level of fluoride for an infant. So, in other words, they shouldn’t be getting any. In fact, even at 1 part per million it is still a dangerous toxin that can have long lasting effects on adults.
If a person wants fluoride that’s their choice but by adding it to the water we are being drugged (poisoned) without our consent. (possible liability issue)
The good news is we can avoid fluoride by running our water either through reverse osmosis or distillation processes. Even better yet, our new city council can stop adding this industrial waste to our water. This will improve the health of our community and we will save money. Most European countries have already banned fluoride in their water systems and many other communities across Canada and the United States are doing the same. Let’s stop paying to poison our water.
Dr. Davis Lindsay, B.Sc., DC
Published: January 09, 2012
Dear Sir:
The reason for this letter is to inform the people of Terrace about a serious public health issue. Most people realize that our bodies are roughly two thirds water so we need to drink enough water every day to stay healthy. Unfortunately, certain types of water are really detrimental to our health. Terrace tap water is one of them.
The reason why our municipal tap water is so unhealthy is that chlorine and fluoride are added to the water. My focus of this letter is in regards to the addition of unnecessary and harmful fluoride to the water.
In Terrace, Fluorosilicic Acid is added to our municipal water supply which is a byproduct of industrial waste. There is plenty of research to show that fluoride is toxic and detrimental to our health. It is so toxic that it can eat through steel, iron, and aluminum. Fluoride is one of the most toxic substances on earth.
A study by the National Cancer Institute found that cancer in the bones was 50% higher in communities where fluoride was added to the water, when compared to communities that don’t have fluoride. In 1992 the New Jersey Department of Health published a study showing cancer rates of 3-7 times higher in males in areas with fluoride added, as compared to non-fluoridated communities. Several studies have also shown that fluoride causes damage to our genetic structure and thyroid gland.
Too much fluoride can also build up in the bones, a condition I have seen in several patients in Terrace. This leads to brittle bones and mottled tooth enamel. Fluoride also causes abnormal calcification of the ligaments around the spine, ribs and pelvis, pulmonary fibrosis (lung damage), anemia (blood disorder), liver damage and heart problems.
Fluoride added to the water also can cause damage to the nervous system, especially the brain, in children. In January 2011, a study from the scientific journal Neurologia found that Fluoride is toxic and passes into the brain causing nervous system damage. The authors concluded that people should avoid all forms of fluoride including those in toothpaste and water.
The problem with adding fluoride to the water is that there is no way to control the amount a person is ingesting. The more water a person drinks, the more fluoride they are going to be exposed to. Also, fluoride becomes an airborne gas when water is heated, as in the bath or shower leading to a further increase in exposure.
As if this problem is not bad enough in adults, in infants, especially, it is more of a concern because most baby formulas are already contaminated with fluoride, and then if the formula is made with tap water they are getting far more than they should. There is no established safe level of fluoride for an infant. So, in other words, they shouldn’t be getting any. In fact, even at 1 part per million it is still a dangerous toxin that can have long lasting effects on adults.
If a person wants fluoride that’s their choice but by adding it to the water we are being drugged (poisoned) without our consent. (possible liability issue)
The good news is we can avoid fluoride by running our water either through reverse osmosis or distillation processes. Even better yet, our new city council can stop adding this industrial waste to our water. This will improve the health of our community and we will save money. Most European countries have already banned fluoride in their water systems and many other communities across Canada and the United States are doing the same. Let’s stop paying to poison our water.
Dr. Davis Lindsay, B.Sc., DC
posted by Bill at
9:54 AM
|
2 comments
Monday, January 09, 2012
ABCNEWS - Too Much Fluoride in Water - Fluorosis Ruining Teeth and Other Health
You might not have seen it.
posted by Bill at
9:43 AM
|
0 comments
Sunday, January 08, 2012
Australia - A system in decay Deborah Cole
A system in decay Deborah Cole
January 8, 2012
Australia is in desperate need of a national dental health scheme, writes Deborah Cole.
HERE'S what we know for sure: poor dental health is costing the Australian economy up to $2 billion a year. Dental decay is connected to major chronic illnesses including cardiovascular disease, diabetes and dementia. Diseases of the mouth are a key marker of social disparity and yet almost all oral diseases are largely preventable.
A report recently published by the Brotherhood of St Lawrence, End the Decay: The cost of poor dental health and what should be done about it, found that poor dental health is costing the Australian economy between $1.3 billion and $2 billion a year in direct and indirect costs, including avoidable hospital admissions, lost productivity and induced illnesses such as periodontal-related coronary heart disease.
Yet dental care constitutes only 6 per cent of national health spending, and a large amount of that spending is out-of-pocket expense by the individual.
Advertisement: Story continues below It's time to act. We need to introduce a universal dental scheme so that everyone who needs to see the dentist for basic healthcare can.
Research shows that in the past two years, almost 2 million Australians who needed dental care were unable to get treatment because they couldn't afford it.
So it's no surprise that children from low socio-economic areas have 70 per cent more dental decay than children whose parents are well off. Adults on low incomes are 60 times more likely to have no teeth than prosperous people.
Visiting the dentist can be an expensive exercise. Many Australians cannot afford to see a private dentist and, when they try to access public dental services, they are faced with long waiting lists - a national average of more than two years. As a result, poor dental health has reached epidemic proportions. Our children and those experiencing financial hardship are suffering the most.
In November, I met the National Advisory Council on Dental Health to advocate a universal dental scheme.
In the lead-up to my meeting, I collected stories from everyday Australians who are suffering from poor dental health. Some of the people who shared their stories were under the age of 35 and had none of their natural teeth left. That simply isn't good enough.
We need a system that helps people get the care they need when they need it. A system that encourages education, prevention and early intervention of oral disease. A system that will enable Australians to access dental care before their oral health becomes so bad that their only option is to have their teeth extracted.
Dental health is a vital component of general health and wellbeing. A 2010 study found that a person who has fewer than 10 of their natural teeth left is seven times more likely to die of coronary disease than someone with more than 25 of their own teeth. A report, reviewing almost 100 publications, released by Dental Health Services Victoria last month, explains how poor oral health has also been linked to diabetes, respiratory diseases, stroke, kidney diseases, dementia and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
In addition to its links to chronic diseases, dental health has a huge impact on people's everyday lives. Poor dental health affects people's ability to eat, speak, socialise and find work. Many Australians who have lost some or all of their natural teeth are too embarrassed to leave their homes for fear of ridicule and judgment.....
Fluoridated Australia.
January 8, 2012
Australia is in desperate need of a national dental health scheme, writes Deborah Cole.
HERE'S what we know for sure: poor dental health is costing the Australian economy up to $2 billion a year. Dental decay is connected to major chronic illnesses including cardiovascular disease, diabetes and dementia. Diseases of the mouth are a key marker of social disparity and yet almost all oral diseases are largely preventable.
A report recently published by the Brotherhood of St Lawrence, End the Decay: The cost of poor dental health and what should be done about it, found that poor dental health is costing the Australian economy between $1.3 billion and $2 billion a year in direct and indirect costs, including avoidable hospital admissions, lost productivity and induced illnesses such as periodontal-related coronary heart disease.
Yet dental care constitutes only 6 per cent of national health spending, and a large amount of that spending is out-of-pocket expense by the individual.
Advertisement: Story continues below It's time to act. We need to introduce a universal dental scheme so that everyone who needs to see the dentist for basic healthcare can.
Research shows that in the past two years, almost 2 million Australians who needed dental care were unable to get treatment because they couldn't afford it.
So it's no surprise that children from low socio-economic areas have 70 per cent more dental decay than children whose parents are well off. Adults on low incomes are 60 times more likely to have no teeth than prosperous people.
Visiting the dentist can be an expensive exercise. Many Australians cannot afford to see a private dentist and, when they try to access public dental services, they are faced with long waiting lists - a national average of more than two years. As a result, poor dental health has reached epidemic proportions. Our children and those experiencing financial hardship are suffering the most.
In November, I met the National Advisory Council on Dental Health to advocate a universal dental scheme.
In the lead-up to my meeting, I collected stories from everyday Australians who are suffering from poor dental health. Some of the people who shared their stories were under the age of 35 and had none of their natural teeth left. That simply isn't good enough.
We need a system that helps people get the care they need when they need it. A system that encourages education, prevention and early intervention of oral disease. A system that will enable Australians to access dental care before their oral health becomes so bad that their only option is to have their teeth extracted.
Dental health is a vital component of general health and wellbeing. A 2010 study found that a person who has fewer than 10 of their natural teeth left is seven times more likely to die of coronary disease than someone with more than 25 of their own teeth. A report, reviewing almost 100 publications, released by Dental Health Services Victoria last month, explains how poor oral health has also been linked to diabetes, respiratory diseases, stroke, kidney diseases, dementia and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
In addition to its links to chronic diseases, dental health has a huge impact on people's everyday lives. Poor dental health affects people's ability to eat, speak, socialise and find work. Many Australians who have lost some or all of their natural teeth are too embarrassed to leave their homes for fear of ridicule and judgment.....
Fluoridated Australia.
posted by Bill at
9:50 AM
|
1 comments
Saturday, January 07, 2012
USA - Healthy mouth, economy linked
While many Coloradans focus on their 2012 New Year's resolutions, community and public health leaders across the state are pledging to improve the oral health of all Coloradans.
Diseases of the mouth get little attention compared to the many other medical issues, but these diseases directly impact the economic health of our state. In 2010, Americans spent an estimated $108 billion on dental services. Oral diseases, pain and infections account for 164 million lost work hours nationally and about 7.8 million lost school hours in Colorado......
Despite decades of water fluoridation: NYSCOF
Diseases of the mouth get little attention compared to the many other medical issues, but these diseases directly impact the economic health of our state. In 2010, Americans spent an estimated $108 billion on dental services. Oral diseases, pain and infections account for 164 million lost work hours nationally and about 7.8 million lost school hours in Colorado......
Despite decades of water fluoridation: NYSCOF
posted by Bill at
10:08 AM
|
0 comments
Scotland - Battle to get kids signed up to NHS dentist
Battle to get kids signed up to NHS dentist
Neil Evans
Aberdeen Evening Express
January 6, 2012
A QUARTER of all children across the North-east are still not signed up to an NHS dentist, it was revealed today.
And a senior health boss admitted today there was still a big obstacle in the battle to find about 20,000 kids missing from NHS Grampian's dental register.
Ray Watkins, consultant in Dental Public Health at NHS Grampian, said the fact that 25% of children across Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and Moray were still not signed up to an NHS dentist was a "major problem".
Last month, new figures showed that levels of tooth decay among children had fallen and the standard of kids' teeth was at its highest ever. But Mr Watkins said NHS Grampian was still concerned not all children were being seen by a dentist.
He praised programmes such as ChildSmile, which has seen dental nurses going into schools and treating children's teeth.
But he said: "There has been a lot of positive work. But we still find there is a section of people out there who do not come and use the service.
"There are 75% of children registered, that is the lowest in the country - 25% is about 20,000 children.
"Some of them may be receiving treatment privately, but we are concerned that many of them will be more deprived areas."
Mr Watkins, pictured, said NHS Grampian was waiting for more research to come back on what areas non-registered children were coming from and then would start targeting them over the next three months.
Figures released last year showed 70.5% of P7 pupils in Grampian showed no clear signs of tooth decay.
The number of people overall registered with NHS dentists in the region increased, but just 53.5% of the North-east population are registered, against a national average of 75.6%.
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said more youngsters are being registered with NHS dentists.
She said: "As of 30 September 2011, 86% of children in Scotland are registered with an NHS dentist."
"Good teeth vital for our kids' future"
Neil Evans
Aberdeen Evening Express
January 6, 2012
A QUARTER of all children across the North-east are still not signed up to an NHS dentist, it was revealed today.
And a senior health boss admitted today there was still a big obstacle in the battle to find about 20,000 kids missing from NHS Grampian's dental register.
Ray Watkins, consultant in Dental Public Health at NHS Grampian, said the fact that 25% of children across Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and Moray were still not signed up to an NHS dentist was a "major problem".
Last month, new figures showed that levels of tooth decay among children had fallen and the standard of kids' teeth was at its highest ever. But Mr Watkins said NHS Grampian was still concerned not all children were being seen by a dentist.
He praised programmes such as ChildSmile, which has seen dental nurses going into schools and treating children's teeth.
But he said: "There has been a lot of positive work. But we still find there is a section of people out there who do not come and use the service.
"There are 75% of children registered, that is the lowest in the country - 25% is about 20,000 children.
"Some of them may be receiving treatment privately, but we are concerned that many of them will be more deprived areas."
Mr Watkins, pictured, said NHS Grampian was waiting for more research to come back on what areas non-registered children were coming from and then would start targeting them over the next three months.
Figures released last year showed 70.5% of P7 pupils in Grampian showed no clear signs of tooth decay.
The number of people overall registered with NHS dentists in the region increased, but just 53.5% of the North-east population are registered, against a national average of 75.6%.
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said more youngsters are being registered with NHS dentists.
She said: "As of 30 September 2011, 86% of children in Scotland are registered with an NHS dentist."
"Good teeth vital for our kids' future"
posted by Bill at
10:00 AM
|
1 comments
Friday, January 06, 2012
Daily Echo - Letter
Let's talk fair about issue of fluoridationALTHOUGH I live outside the proposed fluoridation area, I do have concerns about fair play. It seems that the majority of correspondents who write about fluoridation have become obsessed with rumours and conspiracy theories, and should think more carefully about the following:
1) Use of the term mass medication is not justified from my dictionary definition of medicine, since fluoridation is not intended to cure, but only help prevent dental disease. It is of course an effective rabble rousing term. Logically, these opponents of fluoridation should also oppose chlorine-based products added to prevent admittedly more serious disease. Is this what they want?
2) After fluoridation, the water will still be 99.9999 per cent free of fluoride, instead of 99.99998 per cent. There are many salts causing temporary and permanent
hardness that are several hundred times this level - so much for the 'pure' water that some idealists believe we have at present, and are occasionally asked to boil before drinking.
3) There is intense focus on the
possible side effects of fluoridation, and a blind eye turned to the basic proven benefits.
4) The toxic nature of hexafluorosilicic acid is trumpeted, but so is chlorine (a first world war poison gas) and common salt for that matter. It's all in the dilution.
5) The SHA were unanimous in approving fluoridation after careful expert examination. How many of these opponents have even got A-level chemistry?
6) They have fallen for the popular conspiracy theory syndrome, which has created the 'big brother' SHA buying poison from evil manufacturers who can't dispose of it legally, and adding it to our pure water supply.
Shades of Batman and the Penguin! In fact, most hexafluorosilicic acid is used in the manufacture of aluminium.
7) It would be more fitting of the Echo to rename their 'Great Fluoride Debate' the Great Anti-Fluoride campaign.
Every letter and topic arising with a negative slant on fluoridation is given headline status. Even the entirely reasonable proposal to monitor the effect on dental health led to the spin headline that residents were being used as guinea pigs.
8) The use of general anaesthetic on children to remove teeth can result in fatalities, but nobody has yet claimed that fluoridation can kill anybody. Give them time.
Mr A K Roberts
posted by Bill at
9:35 AM
|
0 comments
USA - A truck carrying fluoride leaked at the MDC facility in West Hartford
A truck carrying fluoride to the Metropolitan District Commission facility in West Hartford began leaking, causing concern Thursday morning.
MDC workers immediately called emergency crews to the facility at 1425 Farmington Avenue to contain the fluoride. The MDC reservoirs in West Hartford supply drinking water to much of the area.
There was no danger to the public, but it was unclear how much of the 4,500 gallons of fluoride had leaked. The remaining fluoride was being offloaded into the storage tanks where it was originally meant to be placed. Firefighters asked workers to stay out of the building where the leak occurred until the offloading process was completed, officials said.
There were no evacuations and no injuries, according to the MDC.
Fluoride in its concentrated form in the truck can be corrosive on contact, officials said.
The spill posed no threat to the drinking water, according to the MDC.
MDC workers immediately called emergency crews to the facility at 1425 Farmington Avenue to contain the fluoride. The MDC reservoirs in West Hartford supply drinking water to much of the area.
There was no danger to the public, but it was unclear how much of the 4,500 gallons of fluoride had leaked. The remaining fluoride was being offloaded into the storage tanks where it was originally meant to be placed. Firefighters asked workers to stay out of the building where the leak occurred until the offloading process was completed, officials said.
There were no evacuations and no injuries, according to the MDC.
Fluoride in its concentrated form in the truck can be corrosive on contact, officials said.
The spill posed no threat to the drinking water, according to the MDC.
posted by Bill at
9:32 AM
|
0 comments
Thursday, January 05, 2012
USA - Student First Campbell Chemistry Undergrad to Have Research Published
Student First Campbell Chemistry Undergrad to Have Research Published
Targeted News Service
January 4, 2012
Campbell University issued the following news release:
Upon hearing she had her first cavity, Bethany Starnes did what any good chemistry major would do ... she began to research.
The then-undergraduate biochemistry and chemistry major at Campbell University thought perhaps something was different about Harnett County's drinking water since the Granite Falls native had never had dental problems before leaving for college.
With the help of faculty advisor Dr. Lin Coker, Starnes molded her curiosity into a detailed study on not only the water in her new county, but whether or not its fluoride levels and the local school district's fluoride rinse program was having an effect on students' dental health. The study was one of 32 entries from 17 different North Carolina colleges and universities published in the 2011 edition of Explorations, an annual journal of undergraduate research in the Tar Heel state.
The cavity may have been bad news, but getting published was a big positive for Starnes, who graduated from Campbell last May.
"When I got the email saying they had accepted my paper and wanted revisions, I was jumping up and down," said Starnes, who is currently looking for her first job in the chemistry field. "It's a big thing ... not many undergraduates do this kind of research or get it published. I hope it gives me an edge."
Coker said Starnes is the first student in Campbell's chemistry department to have a research article published as an undergraduate.
"We already had the equipment needed, and after helping her come up with a research outline, I just guided her whenever she needed it," Coker said. "Bethany came up with many good ideas on her own. She needed less supervision than normal for a research student."
For her research, Starnes surveyed elementary and high school students in Harnett County about their oral hygiene and their participation in the school system's fluoride rinse program, a program that costs the state roughly $376,805 a year (or $5 per student). She also studied economic trends and factored in Harnett County's below-average access to dental care.
She found that the fluoride levels in Harnett's drinking water, while on par with recommended guidelines, did not have an impact - positive or negative - on cavity levels. More surprisingly, neither did the school system's rinse program, a finding she said has garnered attention from public officials........
Targeted News Service
January 4, 2012
Campbell University issued the following news release:
Upon hearing she had her first cavity, Bethany Starnes did what any good chemistry major would do ... she began to research.
The then-undergraduate biochemistry and chemistry major at Campbell University thought perhaps something was different about Harnett County's drinking water since the Granite Falls native had never had dental problems before leaving for college.
With the help of faculty advisor Dr. Lin Coker, Starnes molded her curiosity into a detailed study on not only the water in her new county, but whether or not its fluoride levels and the local school district's fluoride rinse program was having an effect on students' dental health. The study was one of 32 entries from 17 different North Carolina colleges and universities published in the 2011 edition of Explorations, an annual journal of undergraduate research in the Tar Heel state.
The cavity may have been bad news, but getting published was a big positive for Starnes, who graduated from Campbell last May.
"When I got the email saying they had accepted my paper and wanted revisions, I was jumping up and down," said Starnes, who is currently looking for her first job in the chemistry field. "It's a big thing ... not many undergraduates do this kind of research or get it published. I hope it gives me an edge."
Coker said Starnes is the first student in Campbell's chemistry department to have a research article published as an undergraduate.
"We already had the equipment needed, and after helping her come up with a research outline, I just guided her whenever she needed it," Coker said. "Bethany came up with many good ideas on her own. She needed less supervision than normal for a research student."
For her research, Starnes surveyed elementary and high school students in Harnett County about their oral hygiene and their participation in the school system's fluoride rinse program, a program that costs the state roughly $376,805 a year (or $5 per student). She also studied economic trends and factored in Harnett County's below-average access to dental care.
She found that the fluoride levels in Harnett's drinking water, while on par with recommended guidelines, did not have an impact - positive or negative - on cavity levels. More surprisingly, neither did the school system's rinse program, a finding she said has garnered attention from public officials........
posted by Bill at
9:42 AM
|
0 comments
