To purchase a full resolution download for personal/private use or for public screenings, go here: https://vimeo.com/142518452
Hailed by the Centers for Disease Control as one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th century, water fluoridation is something most of us assume to be safe and effective. But new science has upended this assumption, revealing that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin and an endocrine disruptor. The CDC tells us that drinking fluoride decreases tooth decay, at best, by 25%. That is one-half to one cavity per person over a lifetime. Is one less cavity worth risking a child's long-term brain and thyroid health? It's time to rethink this very old practice.
In OUR DAILY DOSE, filmmaker Jeremy Seifert (GMO OMG) lays out the dangers of water fluoridation informatively and creatively, highlighting the most current research and interviewing top-tier doctors, activists, and attorneys close to the issue. Through thoughtful examination of old beliefs and new science, the film alerts us to the health threat present in the water and beverages we rely on every day. This is an eye-opening look at how we have less control over our health than we may have thought.
posted by Bill at
10:00 AM
9 Comments:
Just wondering if you could share this please Bill...https://community.sumofus.org/petitions/don-t-add-flouride-to-drinking-water-in-england-and-wales
By
rcannard, at 20 October, 2015
This at the end of the article is wrong
Amendments to the Water Bill, are expected to be introduced in late October 2015, will shift responsibility for treating water from water companies to regional strategic Health Authorities. It’s our responsibility to choose whether we want medicine or not and more importantly whether we want it to be added to our Drinking Water and supplied in Mass.
SHAs are disbanded - the water companies don't have any say - the councils have the power.
By
Bill, at 20 October, 2015
Bill, from my understanding it is not quite so clear-cut, and responsibility is rather circular.
1. The water companies will tell you they MUST do as the Health Authority tell them. This is not quite true as the water companies may refuse to fluoridate "for technical reasons" (whatever in legislation that may mean).
2. Meanwhile under new government policy Local (upper tier) councils have been mandated various public health responsibilities, which included fluoridation policy. But in order to implement those policies (to put in or to take out fluoridation schemes) there is a great deal of expensive bureaucracy (consultations) (and politics!!) which councils are reluctant to finance. Hence the status quo becomes almost impossible to change.
3. But into the picture comes the Health Authority itself (Public Health England taking responsibility here). It acts as the Local Authorities' agent for the contracts. This means the Health Authority instructs and liaises with the water authority - on behalf of the LA's. It pays the bills and then recharges those bills, pro-rata, to whichever Local Authority has a fluoridations scheme in its area (there may even be an agent's charge???).
The situation leads to each confusingly passing the buck to the other as far as responsibility is concerned.
Sorry if that does more to confuse than clarify!
By
Cllr. Chris, at 20 October, 2015
I'm sure you know more than I do on individual circumstances Chris but did you go to the web page that Ryan referred to? It mentions the SHAs and is not right so I can't copy it to this blog.
By
Bill, at 20 October, 2015
Yes Bill. SHAs used to but no longer have that power. So Ryan's info is out of date. But it would be a mistake to think power lay completely with the Local Authority. The successors to the SRAs still have their fingers well dipped into that pie! Whether I agree or not (and I don't agree!!) my Council has told me the responsibility lies with Public Health England - and, at first sight, that might appear to be the case. PHE are current sitting on my FOI requests which need this answered. But the Councils are trying to fob off all responsibility and that clearly is wrong.
By
Cllr. Chris, at 20 October, 2015
researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05689/SN05689.pdf
As a result of government NHS reforms, which abolished Strategic Health Authorities, first tier local authorities became responsible for consulting and deciding on fluoridation schemes from 1st April 2013. The Government believed that this “would make decisions on fluoridation more democratically accountable.”40 In February 2013 the Government issued regulations instructing local authorities on the conduct of “consultations and decision making on proposals for either new fluoridation schemes or variations, maintenance or the termination of existing fluoridation schemes”.
If I remember right if you do contest a fluoridation scheme and lose that's it for a long time but they can apply again and again.
By
Bill, at 20 October, 2015
I think it's 20 years Bill
By
rcannard, at 21 October, 2015
Chris is right in saying the information in that article is out of date i have the very same text stating the same which i have had for a while so yes it is old and out of date...It's like pass the parcel at a kids birthday party everyone want's it but there quick to pass it on to the next authority like a hot potato...
By
rcannard, at 21 October, 2015
After 60 plus years of fluoridation shouldn't all the information, especially the science be settled by now,but here we are in the 21st century and still we don't even no who the hell is responsible...
By
rcannard, at 21 October, 2015
Post a Comment
<< Home