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

UK Against Fluoridation

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows



If you’re like two-thirds of Americans, fluoride is added to your tap water for the purpose of reducing cavities. But the scientific rationale for putting it there may be outdated, and no longer as clear-cut as was once thought.  
Water fluoridation, which first began in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and expanded nationwide over the years, has always been controversial. Those opposed to the process have argued—and a growing number of studies have suggested—that the chemical may present a number of health risks, for example interfering with the endocrine system and increasing the risk ofimpaired brain function; two studies in the last few months, for example, have linked fluoridation to ADHD and underactive thyroid. Others argue against water fluoridation on ethical grounds, saying the process forces people to consume a substance they may not know is there—or that they’d rather avoid.
Despite concerns about safety and ethics, many are content to continue fluoridation because of its purported benefit: that it reduces tooth decay. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Oral Health, the main government body responsible for the process, says it’s “safe and effective.”
You might think, then, that fluoridated water's efficacy as a cavity preventer would be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But new research suggests that assumption is dramatically misguided; while using fluoridated toothpaste has been proven to be good for oral health, consuming fluoridated water may have no positive impact. 
The Cochrane Collaboration, a group of doctors and researchers known for their comprehensive reviews—which are widely regarded as the gold standard of scientific rigor in assessing effectiveness of public health policies—recently set out to find out if fluoridation reduces cavities. They reviewed every study done on fluoridation that they could find, and then winnowed down the collection to only the most comprehensive, well-designed and reliable papers. Then they analyzed these studies’ results, and published their conclusion in a review earlier this month.
The review identified only three studies since 1975—of sufficient quality to be included—that addressed the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay in the population at large. These papers determined that fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth, says study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom. The authors found only seven other studies worthy of inclusion dating prior to 1975. 
The authors also found only two studies since 1975 that looked at the effectiveness of reducing cavities in baby teeth, and found fluoridation to have no statistically significant impact here, either. 
The scientists also found “insufficient evidence” that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in adults (children excluded).
“From the review, we’re unable to determine whether water fluoridation has an impact on caries levels in adults,” Glenny says. (“Tooth decay,” “cavities” and “caries” all mean the same thing: breakdown of enamel by mouth-dwelling microbes.)
“Frankly, this is pretty shocking,” says Thomas Zoeller, a scientist at UMass-Amherst uninvolved in the work. “This study does not support the use of fluoride in drinking water.” Trevor Sheldon concurred. Sheldon is the dean of the Hull York Medical School in the United Kingdom who led the advisory board that conducted a systematic review of water fluoridation in 2000, that came to similar conclusions as the Cochrane review. The lack of good evidence of effectiveness has shocked him. “I had assumed because of everything I’d heard that water fluoridation reduces cavities but I was completely amazed by the lack of evidence,” he says. “My prior view was completely reversed."
“There’s really hardly any evidence” the practice works, Sheldon adds. “And if anything there may be some evidence the other way.” One 2001 studycovered in the Cochrane review of two neighboring British Columbia communities found that when fluoridation was stopped in one city, cavity prevalence actually went down slightly amongst schoolchildren, while cavity rates in the fluoridated community remained stable.  
RTX146EGNACHO DOCE / REUTERS
Overall the review suggests that stopping fluoridation would be unlikely to increase the risk of tooth decay, says Kathleen Thiessen, a senior scientist at the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis, which does human health risk assessments of environmental contaminants.
“The sad story is that very little has been done in recent years to ensure that fluoridation is still needed [or] to ensure that adverse effects do not happen,” says Dr. Philippe Grandjean, an environmental health researcher and physician at Harvard University.
The scientists also couldn’t find enough evidence to support the oft-repeated notion that fluoridation reduces dental health disparities among different socioeconomic groups, which the CDC and others use as a rationale for fluoridating water.
“The fact that there is insufficient information to determine whether fluoridation reduces social inequalities in dental health is troublesome given that this is often cited as a reason for fluoridating water,” say Christine Tilland Ashley Malin, researchers at Toronto’s York University.
Studies that attest to the effectiveness of fluoridation were generally done before the widespread usage of fluoride-containing dental products like rinses and toothpastes in the 1970s and later, according to the recent Cochrane study. So while it may have once made sense to add fluoride to water, it no longer appears to be necessary or useful, Thiessen says.
It has also become clear in the last 15 years that fluoride primarily acts topically, according to the CDC. It reacts with the surface of the tooth enamel, making it more resistant to acids excreted by bacteria. Thus, there's no good reason to swallow fluoride and subject every tissue of your body to it, Thiessen says.
Another 2009 review by the Cochrane group clearly shows that fluoride toothpaste prevents cavities, serving as a useful counterpoint to fluoridation’s uncertain benefits.
Across all nine studies included in the review looking at caries reductions in children's permanent choppers, there was evidence linking fluoridation to  26 percent decline in the prevalence of decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. But the researchers say they have serious doubts about the validity of this number. They write: “We have limited confidence in the size of this effect due to the high risk of bias within the studies and the lack of contemporary evidence.” Six of the nine studies were from before 1975, before fluoride toothpaste was widely available.
The review also found fluoridation was associated with a 14 percent increase in the number of children without any cavities. But more than two-thirds percent of the studies showing this took place more than 40 years ago, and are not of high quality.
Nearly all these papers were flawed in significant ways. For example, 70 percent of the cavity-reducing studies made no effort to control for important confounding factors such as dietary sources of fluoride other than tap water, diet in general (like how much sugar they consumed) or ethnicity. 
When it comes to fluoridation research, even the best studies are not high quality. Although this was already well-established, it doesn't seem to be well-known.
“I couldn’t believe the low quality of the research” on fluoridation, Sheldon says.
The data suggest that toothpaste, besides other preventative measures like dental sealants, flossing and avoiding sugar, are the real drivers in the decline of tooth decay in the past few decades, Thiessen says. Indeed, cavity rates have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation.
water-fluoridation-cavitiesRates of cavities have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation. KK CHENG ET AL / BMJ
Meanwhile, dental health leaves much to be desired in widely fluoridated America: About 60 percent of American teenagers have had cavities, and 15 percent have untreated tooth decay.
One thing the review definitively concluded: Fluoridation causes fluorosis.
This condition occurs when fluoride interferes with the cells that produce enamel, creating white flecks on the teeth. On average, about 12 percent of people in fluoridated areas have fluorosis bad enough that it qualifies as an “aesthetic concern,” according to the review. According to Sheldon, that’s a “huge number.” A total of 40 percent of people in fluoridated areas have some level of fluorosis, though the majority of these cases are likely unnoticeable to the average person.
In a smaller percentage of cases, fluorosis can be severe enough to cause structural damage, brown stains and mottling to the tooth.
Sheldon says that if fluoridation were to be submitted anew for approval today, “nobody would even think about it” due to the shoddy evidence of effectiveness and obvious downside of fluorosis.
There is also a definite issue of inequality when it comes to fluorosis. Blacks and Mexican-Americans have higher rates of both moderate and severe forms of the condition. Blacks also have higher levels. As of 2004, 58 percent of African-Americans had fluorosis, compared to 36 percent of whites, and the condition is becoming more common.
The Cochrane review concerned itself only with oral health. It didn’t address other health problems associated with fluoride, which Grandjean says need to be researched.
Many of the Cochrane study’s conclusions conflict with statements by the CDC, the American Dental Association and others that maintain fluoridation is safe and effective. The ADA, for example, maintains on its website that “thousands of studies” support fluoridation’s effectiveness—which is directly contradicted by the Cochrane findings. The ADA didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
The  CDC remains undeterred. “Nothing in the Cochrane review” reduces the government’s “confidence in water fluoridation as a valuable tool to prevent tooth decay in children as well as adults,” says Barbara Gooch, a dental researcher with CDC’s Division of Oral Health.
The CDC and others “are somehow suspending disbelief,” Sheldon says. They are “all in the mindset that this is a really good thing, and just not accepting that they might be wrong.” Sheldon and others suggest pro-fluoridation beliefs are entrenched and will not easily change, despite the poor data quality and lack of evidence from the past 40 years.
Derek Richards, the editor of the journal Evidence-Based Dentistry (published by the prestigious Nature group) concedes that “we haven’t got any current evidence” that fluoridation reduces cavities, “so we don’t know how much it’s reducing tooth decay at the moment,” he says. “But I have no qualms about that.” Richards reasons that because fluoridation may help reduce cavities in those who don’t use toothpaste or take other preventative measures, including many in lower socioeconomic groups, it’s likely still useful. He also argues that there’s no conclusive evidence of harm from fluoridation (other than fluorosis), so he doesn’t see a large downside.
But most scientists interviewed for this article don’t necessarily think fluoridation’s uncertain benefits justify its continuation without more stringent evidence, and argue for more research into the matter.
“When you have a public health intervention that’s applied to everybody, the burden of evidence to know that people are likely to benefit and not to be harmed is much higher, since people can’t choose,” Sheldon says. Everybody drinks water, after all, mostly from the tap. “Public health bodies need to have the courage to look at this review,” says Sheldon, “and be honest enough to say that this needs to be reconsidered.”

Fizzy drinks lethal toll

Scientists warn they kill 184,000 a year through diabetes, heart disease and cancer
Study looked at sodas, fruit drinks, sports and energy drinks
Potentially lethal: Researchers claim sugary drinks kill as many as 184,000 adults each year (stock image)Found they have no benefits but contribute to thousands of deaths
Urged world governments to eliminate such drinks from diets
By COLIN FERNANDEZ

Sugary drinks kill as many as 184,000 adults each year, scientists claim.
Fizzy soft drinks, fruit drinks, energy drinks and sweetened iced teas are causing thousands of deaths and have no health benefits, they said.
And they warned that governments across the world should make it a priority to eliminate such drinks from people’s diets.
Researchers said sugary drinks were implicated in 133,000 diabetes deaths worldwide in one year. Another 45,000 died from cardiovascular disease and 6,450 from cancer. All three diseases have been linked to high sugar consumption.

Steven shouldn't your talent be directed against manufacturers who cause the tooth rot to youngsters rather than crusading for fluoride.


How Conflicts of Interest Have Corrupted the CDC

By Dr. Mercola
Conflicts of interest have become more the rule than the occasional exception. Even the trusted US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) receives heavy funding from industry.
How this conflict of interest may have affected the organization’s decisions is the topic of an article1 in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), penned by the journal’s associate editor, Jeanne Lenzer, who notes:
“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) includes the following disclaimer with its recommendations:
“CDC, our planners, and our content experts wish to disclose they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products... CDC does not accept commercial support.”
The CDC’s image as an independent watchdog over the public health has given it enormous prestige, and its recommendations are occasionally enforced by law.
Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking.”............


Surely not - would they Steven?

Monday, June 29, 2015




Someone ought to tell his parents what he is up to.



You won't like this one Steven.

Rates of thyroid cancer tripled since 1975 - public water utilities continue to poison us with water fluoridation


thyroid(NaturalNews) As scientists struggle to explain why thyroid cancer rates have more than tripled in the U.S. since the mid-1970s, nobody's addressing the elephant in the room that is artificial water fluoridation and the confirmed toxicity of fluoride chemicals when they enter the thyroid gland.


A study published last year attempted to explain away the thyroid cancer epidemic in the U.S. today, blaming it not on more actual cases of the disease, but rather on morediagnoses. The problem, say researchers from Dartmouth University, is that thyroid cancer is supposedly overdiagnosed and overtreated.

"The incidence of thyroid cancer is at epidemic proportions, but it doesn't look like an epidemic of disease," believes Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice. "[I]t looks like an epidemic of diagnosis," he's quoted as saying by HealthDay News.

It's a plausible hypothesis, actually: Just like with prostate cancer, testing regimens for thyroid cancer oftentimes pick up benign cancers that never would have developed into anything serious. Meanwhile, many of those diagnosed undergo invasive procedures, such as having their thyroids completely removed, that were never even necessary.

"This means that a lot of people are having their thyroids removed for a cancer that was never going to bother them," said Dr. Welch, suggesting that, as more people become aware of thyroid cancer and have their necks examined to look for problems, they're being misdiagnosed.

Multiple studies dating back to the 1970s link fluoride exposure to thyroid and other cancers

But what about the fluoride connection? Sure, some folks are being misdiagnosed as this study suggests, but it's surely not misdiagnosis that's primarily responsible for the more than 300% rise in thyroid cancer rates over the past 40 years. So what is it?

A study published just this year showed that fluoride ingestion is directly associated with rising rates of underactive thyroid, or hypothyroidism. Published in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, the paper "raises questions about the safety of community fluoridation," to quote the words of one of its authors...........

Sunday, June 28, 2015


Government Mind Control - The Fluoride Conspiracy by extremlymsync

Saturday, June 27, 2015

He's back


Welcome back Steven I know you've been busy writing comments elsewhere. According to Google almost 900 hits on this page when you wrote far more than normal so I must thank you for writing.
I don't know if people believe you or not but you are passionate in fluoridation's support.
What are your views on the pineal gland does fluoride affect it not forgetting the thyroid of course. Your views on both would be appreciated.

Below is Stevens latest comment followed by Chris Cooke's and then Steven at his rude best.
Followed by Chris's
_____________________________________________________________

"Misleading answer"?

No. Dental fluorosis can only occur during the teeth developing years of 0-8. Skeletal fluorosis is so rare in the 74.6% fluoridated US as to be nearly non-existent. The US Institute of Medicine established daily upper intake of fluoride before skeletal fluorosis or any other adverse effct may occur, is 10 mg.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

_____________________________________________________________
Steven, nice to have you back! :-)

I have to tell you, though, that there is a multitude of sin hidden behind your simple quotation of a statistic. Take your "everything is hunky-dory if you consume less that 10mg per day" figure.

1. That "upper intake" limit for babies is not 10mg/day of course. It is actually 0.7 - going as high as 2.2mg/d for 4 - 8 yrs.

2. Bear in mind this is the upper "tolerable" intake (U.T.I.) - above which, presumably, it would not be tolerable?? Not for anybody. You seem not to want to use that qualifying word "tolerable". Why not?

3. This U.T.I. applies to "almost all individuals in the population" according to the Institute. No idea then of who it does NOT apply to? Or the harm that might be done? I would imagine people with pre-existing medical conditions, particularly kidney malfunction, were most at risk. How many people is this? What harm may occur to them? Will any die - or live shorter lives - as a result? How do we protect them?

4. Yet this U.T.I. becomes meaningless when set aside the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) because there is NO RDA (apparently not enough research!). Makes you wonder how they managed to get the U.T.L. figures! Instead they give what they call an "Adequate Intake" (A.I.) figure (they admit this figure is not much better than a guess and do not know how many people this A.I. might apply to). This A.I. varies between 2 - 4 mg/d for (healthy!) adults to the much lower levels for children, to as near as dammit zero for babies. Not forgetting that water fluoridation is being sold to us as helping children's teeth - children seem to have a much lower tolerance for this poison. Natural mother's milk also uniquely filters out the fluoride from the body - showing that perhaps breast-feeding is really best?

5. However the real damnation of this 10mg U.T.I. figure lies in the source - which is dated 1997! 18 years ago!! There's been a lot of research in those intervening years virtually without exception showing fluoride to be more dangerous than previously believed.

So, you see Steven, your reassuringly glib assertion about a 10mg "Upper Limit" is more deceptive than clarifying. As is your comment reference "skeletal fluorosis". Younger and younger people nowadays are being diagnosed with "arthritis" which is almost identical to skeletal fluorosis. Doctors are not trained to recognise anything but the severest forms of skeletal fluorosis and, until that point, invariable will diagnose arthritis instead. Maybe it's the skeletal fluorosis diagnosis that is rare, rather than the condition??

Regardless, I guess you'll continue to use those same 10mg/d ("upper intake" - nothing about "tolerable"!) figures on other forums. But you will now know that on this forum at least we won't have the wool pulled over our eyes with seriously misleading statistics.


Chris
_____________________________________________________________


1. The IOM daily upper limit for infants:

0-6 mos -0.7 mg.
6-12 mos - 0.9 mg
1-3 years- 1.2 mg
4-8 yrs- 2.3 mg
Above 8 yrs- 10 mg

The only risk to infants and children 0-8 years from exceeding this upper limit due to optimally fluoridated water, is mild to very mild dental fluorisis, a barely detectible effect which causes no adversity on cosmetic, form, function, or health of teeth.

That mild dental fluorosis is the only risk to infants is evidenced by the fact that after age 8, the daily UL jumps to 10 mg . Dental fluorosis can only occur during the teeth developing years of 0-8.

The validity of the IOM daily UL is evidenced by the fact that in the 70 year hustory of fluoridation, there have been no proven adverse effects.

Your unsubstantiated speculation and personal opinions are meaningless. If you have any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of optimal level fluoride.....including to patients with "pre-existing, conditions, particularly kidney malfunction".....then present it, properly cited.

As no such evidence exists, I will not hold my breath in anticipation.

Steven D. Slott, DDS


Steven - the first part of your latest comment is about amounts for infants. That merely reproduces and expands on what I said. Were you trying to make a point? If so what was it? The rest of your comment simply sidesteps my five points. I must take it therefore that you agree with me that your quoting of an official "Upper Intake" figure of 10mg lacked proper qualification and or explanation. Therefore I was right and your comment was indeed misleading.

The rest of your comment is a "come on - show me the evidence" type of comment. There's no way I'm going to text volumes for you merely to "refuse to accept" or simply ignore. You can have this link here: http://fluoridealert.org/studies/schiffl-2008/ . There's enough other links on the web if you care to research.

The five studies quoted in this link are mostly recent. They are peer reviewed because otherwise they would not get published in well known and respectable medical journals - although I understand (before you say so) that peer review standards vary from journal to journal.

BTW - I've just been having a chortle at the ADA pro-fluoridation propaganda "Fluoridation Facts" (71 pages!!). It has a very curious idea of what a "fact" is. They don't seem to be able to tell simple truth on anything!! So if that's what fills up you daily reading diet I can understand why you dentists say the things that you say! Just one little "for instance". They claim not one single European Country has ever banned fluoridation. Despite Germany having an actual law against it and Holland stopping it in the 1970's when it was judged illegal. This link will fill you in: http://topinfopost.com/2014/02/13/98-per-cent-of-europe-banned-water-fluoridation - Complete with scanned copies of confirmation letters from the proper authorities in each of those countries. So .... tell me Steven .... how can this ADA - whose "professional opinion" you seem to value so highly - make up such gob-smacking and patently untrue "facts"? Is it willful ignorance or deliberate deception?

_____________________________________________________________


Bombshell: Government Admits Fluoride Hurting... by jaggedmalmsey

Another old video but worth watching again and maybe Steven hasn't seen it.

Canada - Fluoride: we’re stuck with it, reader

Dear Mayor and council,
We read with interest the article in the Beacon Star on June 5 (Town opts to stick with fluoride) regarding the town’s decision to keep the fluoridation of the water supply to the town.
We have a few questions regarding this decision.
Dr. Jim Chirico stated that fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral found in rock, soil and water. However, when we spoke with Coun. Paul Borneman in December 2014, he told us the type of fluoride that the town uses comes from industrial plant waste in Asia. It is illegal for use there, because of its toxicity. It is not a naturally-occurring fluoride. Consequently, we started to do some research and discovered that many people – health care professionals and ordinary citizens – have had a growing concern over the safety and efficiency of treating drinking water with this chemical mixture. Dr. Chirico also states that the water is treated with chlorine, another toxic chemical. He failed to point out that while chlorine is easily and inexpensively removed from water (if one so chooses), the fluoride compound - and some of the chemicals that come with it- cannot be removed; we are stuck with it.
We would like to hear a response from council on some other questions: How much research into the effects and efficiency of water fluoridation did the councillors themselves do?
In the district of Parry Sound, where a majority of the populace lives outside the area served by treated water, the local dental professionals would see if there was a marked difference between the dental health of those drinking the fluoride treated water and home and those that are on other systems. Was this report prepared and presented?
Knowing that many residents of the town had concerns about the addition of this type of fluoride into our drinking water, what professional did the council ask to present the arguments against the addition of the chemical mixture, so that balanced discussion could be had, and more informed decision could be made?
As this chemical is used to treat humans, and not for the safety of the water supply, do the councilors feel they are in a better position to prescribe this drug to the residents en masse, than our individual health care practitioners are? How did they come to this conclusion?
Coun. Brad Horne stated that he agreed with the World Health Organization about the fact that we put fluoride in the water.
We are enclosing a report from the World Health Organization about the danger of fluoride and the need to remove it from water, due to the many conditions people suffer from fluoridation ranging from ‘mild dental fluorosis to crippling skeletal fluorosis.’
As well, we are including several reports from Europe and North America, from a wide range of health care professionals, with accreditations and sources noted, regarding the dangers of the addition of this chemical mixture drinking water.
You will note that Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in Medicine/Physiology has this to say: “Fluoridation goes against all principles of pharmacology. It’s obsolete.”
We would like to close by reminding the council that Dr. Chirico warns of the dangers of “selective review of the literature.” Until both sides of the argument are fully presented, that is exactly what council has let happen.
It is not too late to review your decision.
Wayne and Mary Anne Gilbert

Parry Sound
I see Steven added his comments. He keeps busy.


Ask Tufts Experts July 2015 Issue

Q. My dentist recommended using a prescription fluoride toothpaste. If the water in my city is already fluoridated, does that contribute to the risk of possible overdose?

A. Public Health Dentist Wanda Wright, DDS, and Associate Clinical Professor David Leader, DMD, posed this question to Tufts University School of Dental Medicine Dental/Public Health students. Their short answer is that using prescription fluoride toothpaste in communities with water fluoridated at the usual 0.7 to 1.0 parts per million (PPM) will not contribute to the risk of an overdose.
They explain, “Fluoride reaches a toxic level only at 2.5 to 5 grams per kilogram (2.2 pounds) when consumed within two to four hours. That means that an adult would have to ingest hundreds of gallons of community-fluoridated water within a few hours to cause harm. If you were to try to drink that much water so quickly, you would die from the effect of the water before the fluoride could reach a toxic level. It is very important to note the two- to four-hour time frame. Consuming less fluoride over time does not create an additive effect.
“How much water is a toxic dose? In 2007, a 28-year-old woman died after swallowing only 6 liters (6.34 quarts) of water in a contest. That water might have contained 6 milligrams of fluoride. The additional fluoride of prescription toothpaste, if you were to swallow all of the prescription toothpaste on a toothbrush, might be as high as 2 milligrams per use. That means that if this woman also used prescription fluoride toothpaste in that time, she may have ingested as much as 8 milligrams of fluoride in 24 hours. That is a small percentage of an acutely toxic dose for an adult. Please note that we do not recommend prescription fluoride toothpaste for children under seven years old.”

Misleading answer, an overdose no but long term harm like fluorosis yes.

Friday, June 26, 2015


get-attachment (10)

Exposure to mixture of common chemicals may trigger cancer, scientists find


Cancer research has been focused on lifestyle factors as triggers but a high-profile taskforce of international scientists says chemical exposure is a factor. Cancer research has been focused on lifestyle factors as triggers but a high-profile taskforce of international scientists says chemical exposure is a factor. Photograph: Philippe Huguen/AFP/Getty Images
Australian Associated Press

Cancer research has been focused on lifestyle factors as triggers but a high-profile taskforce of international scientists says chemical exposure is a factor.
Chemicals deemed safe to humans may blend lethally together inside the human body to cause cancer, a report says.
Researchers, including New Zealand scientist Dr Linda Gulliver, have released findings into possible links between common chemicals and the development of cancer.
Their results, published in the journal Carcinogenesis, show mixtures of chemicals used in our environment may be acting in concert with each other inside the body to trigger the disease.
Gulliver, from Otago University’s faculty of medicine, says on the back of the findings of the Halifax Project, “considerable attention” needs to be given to investigating the concerning links.
A high-profile taskforce was formed in 2013 by the international organisation Getting to Know Cancer, which was concerned that cancer research was focused primarily on the role of heritable and lifestyle factors as triggers.
This is despite evidence that as many as one in five cancers may be caused by chemical exposures in the environment that are not related to personal lifestyle choices.
Chemicals are tested for carcinogenic links, but only one at a time, leaving questions around the possibility that a fusion of these chemicals may instead be causing cancer.
The taskforce of 174 scientists in 28 countries investigated 85 prototypic chemicals that were not considered to be carcinogenic to humans, and they reviewed their effects against a long list of mechanisms that are important for cancer development.
Working in teams that focused on various hallmarks of cancer, the group found that 50 of those chemicals examined supported key cancer-related mechanisms at levels at which humans are routinely exposed.
The finding supports the idea that chemicals may be capable of acting in concert with one another to cause cancer, even though low-level exposures to these chemicals individually might not be carcinogenic.
Lead researcher William Goodson III, from San Francisco’s California Pacific Medical Center, said his results show one-at-a-time testing is out of date and must be modernised.





Not new but worth watching again.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Dentist issues appeal over use of ‘vital’ free NHS treatments

A Lancashire dentist has warned parents that they could be putting their children at risk of tooth decay by not taking advantage of free NHS treatment.
editorial imageAccording to a Faculty of Dental Surgery report, around a quarter of a million children develop tooth decay by the time they start school, making it the county’s most common childhood disease.
Fluoride varnish is a free preventative treatment and is available to all children aged three and above, providing they are clinically suitable.
The treatment offers protections against decay and strengthens the teeth.
Mydentist practice manager Nicola Brown, said: “Statistics show 30% of children didn’t see an NHS dentist between 2012 and 2014 and dental issues are the main reason for children being admitted to hospital.
£30m. was spent on tooth extractions for under 18s in 2012/2013.
“We’re committed to changing this trend in Lancashire and have an oral health nurse who goes out to local schools and offers help and advice on dental health to both parents and children.
“We are particularly keen for families with young children to register with us so they can benefit from free NHS fluoride varnish treatment.”
The treatment is applied to children’s teeth trice a year from the age of three.

America's third-world government dumps fluoride in drinking water while Ethiopia seeks to remove toxin from water to protect public health


(NaturalNews) It's a prolific disease that's ravaging some areas of Africa and causing permanent health damage among residents. No, we're not talking about malaria or AIDS -- fluorosis, a health condition triggered by exposure to fluoride, is damaging people's teeth and skeletal structures throughout Ethiopia, so much so that health authorities there are working feverishly to get it out of the water supplies to protect public health.

Unlike in the U.S., where dentists, industry lobbyists and corrupt government workers still erroneously insist that fluoride is a "nutrient" that prevents cavities, Ethiopia has a much different view of the chemical. Naturally occurring fluoride, it turns out, has been seeping into water supplies, causing an epidemic of oral and skeletal health problems.

Tens of millions of Ethiopians, according to reports, are right now suffering the ill effects of fluoride exposure, which in addition to destroying teeth also deforms bones and increases the risk of osteoporosis. Locals are developing severe mottling in their teeth, their bones are becoming weak, and their teeth are literally turning brown as a result of fluoride exposure.

"Fluoride-tainted teeth begin to show after one cuts his or her milk teeth and when the permanent teeth grow," stated Fitsum Agza, a resident of Adama City, located about 62 miles east of the capital city of Addis Ababa, to Worldbulletin News. Agza is one of many whose teeth have been destroyed by exposure to fluoride.

"People think we smoke, looking at our tarnished teeth."

High levels of fluoride in Ethiopian water considered "optimal" by U.S. government

In case you were wondering, Ethiopia doesn't intentionally contaminate its water with fluoride chemicals. They come naturally from magma and other volcanic matter beneath the earth's crust, rising to the surface via hot springs and other surface water that's eventually drunk by local people groups.

And the amounts of fluoride found in the water aren't any higher than the maximum "safe" limit established by the U.S. government for American water supplies. Reports indicate that fluoride levels in Ethiopian water range from about 1.5 to 4 milligrams per liter (or parts per million), which falls within the range considered "safe" by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -- the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it's important to note, now recommends an "optimal" fluoride level of 0.7 ppm, after recently revising the maximum amount of 1.2 ppm.

"Fluoride... causes bone deformities and fractures," stated Dr. Aweke Kebede, a nutrition researcher at the Ethiopian Public Health Institute, to Worldbulletin News. "Sometimes, excessive intake of fluoride-mix water causes nerve problems, though not directly.

Naturally occurring fluoride isn't the same as the fluoride added to U.S. water supplies

Sadly, the type of fluoride Dr. Kebede is talking about here isn't even as harmful as the kind intentionally added to U.S. water supplies. Naturally occurring calcium fluoride, which is what Ethiopia is currently dealing with, is an actual mineral; sodium fluoride, hexafluorosilicic acid and various other synthetic fluoride chemicals, on the other hand, are flat-out industrial waste.

Naturally occurring fluoride, it turns out, isn't very water-soluble, meaning it lacks some of the ionic configurations necessary for toxic uptake by humans and animals. The synthetic kind, which American taxpayers actually pay to have laced into their tap water, is highly soluble, hence its dual use as an insecticide and rodenticide.

"The main source of fluoride are [sic] the basaltic rocks in the Rift Valley [of Ethiopia], which have both elevated fluoride content and low soluble calcium concentrations," explains a Water Resource Quality report on the fluoride epidemic in Ethiopia, the purpose of which was to find a solution to effectively remove this contaminant.

Meanwhile, Americans are being forced to guzzle down, shower in and breathe the fumes from fluoride-laced water which corrupt health authorities claim is "good for teeth." The contrast between how Ethiopia, a supposedly "Third World" nation, sees fluoride -- as a clear and present toxin! -- and how the U.S. sees fluoride -- as a nutrient that corrupt politicians continue to force on the public -- is absolutely striking.

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

'Scrap water fluoridation plans in Hull' – Red Labour councillor Gill Kennett


A COUNCILLOR is calling for dental health plans to add fluoride to Hull's water supply to be scrapped.
fluoride_montage_KennettGill Kennett, the only Hull Red Labour councillor at the Guildhall, says the safety of water fluoridation cannot be guaranteed because of a wealth of conflicting evidence.
Cllr Kennett, a member of Hull's Health Scrutiny Commission, said: "There is scientific evidence for it and against it. You will always look to one side of the evidence or the other to back up your argument.
"Personally, I believe it is bad for you, but I cannot argue on that because even the scientists cannot agree.


"So, I'm going on the precautionary principle and I'm saying we shouldn't do it.
"It's no good looking back after 50 years and wishing we hadn't done this."
Hull's Health and Wellbeing Board has embarked on a feasibility study on a water fluoridation scheme as part of the draft oral health plan attempting to reduce levels of tooth decay in children.
The study will examine whether or not water fluoridation would be possible.
Even if it confirms the scheme would be possible, it could still take up to three years to introduce, is likely to require the support of East Riding Council and councillors are already suggesting it could require a referendum.
Cllr Kennett spent 20 years in social services at Hull City Council, including 12 years as a manager, before becoming a councillor, representing Holderness ward, in 2012. Last year, she was removed from the Labour Group after refusing to vote for the annual budgets because of cuts to services.
She said she supported the oral health plan, excluding the feasibility study over water fluoridation, and called for cash earmarked for any fluoridation scheme to be spent on a concerted effort to help families in more deprived areas understand the importance of oral hygiene in children.
"It is a wonderful oral health plan but water fluoridation is clouding the issue and taking attention away from the good parts," she said.
"History is strewn with examples of how we've looked back and wished we hadn't done something. Look at lead, asbestos and Thalidomide.
"We just can't be sure so we shouldn't be doing it."

I wonder if Gill Kennett is aware that one million was spent by the NHS in their attempt to introduce fluoridation to Southampton and failed. No one admitted responsibility or was held responsible for the waste of money trying to force it through when people overwhelmingly voted against the scheme.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015



Should we be putting something in the water to help all the people who can't control their appetite?

Fluoride, arsenic and iodine in China's drinking water poisons 50 million people

Fluoride levels in more than 1,000 counties are too high, while arsenic poses a threat to about 600,000 mainlanders, magazine reportsTens of millions of mainland Chinese are being poisoned by unsafe levels of fluoride and arsenic in drinking water, despite decades of official efforts to improve supplies, state media say.

Roughly 21 million people on the mainland suffer from diseases induced by high fluoride levels in drinking water. Photo: ReutersElevated fluoride levels were found in the water in more than 1,000 counties across the country at the end of 2013, Oriental Outlook, a magazine affiliated with Xinhua, on Monday quoted a Centre for Disease Control and Prevention expert as saying.

Nearly 21 million people suffered diseases caused by excessive exposure, such as skeletal fluorosis - a painful condition that affects bones and joints and which can cripple in severe cases, according to Gao Yanhui, an expert at the centre's National Centre for Endemic Disease Control. Gao said 87 million people were at risk nationwide.

Monday, June 22, 2015

Natural Fluoride (CaF2) vs Chemical Fluoride

Clarification on the two types of fluoride to which ADH health officials keep referring:

1035779717_fluoride-dangerous-stop-think-act.jpgThere are two main forms of fluoride in the world today. One type is the natural version of fluoride that is naturally found in the environment, and it is not that harmful to the environment or to us. The natural version of fluoride found in the soil is known as calcium fluoride (CaF2). The other version is an industrial synthetic called sodium fluoride, a synthetic toxic waste that is known to cause cancer.
Manufacturers of sodium fluoride manipulated their data to create the illusion that sodium fluoride is not toxic. They then used this data to convince political leaders to allow them to add sodium fluoride into consumer products, pesticides and drinking water. (You may have heard it said: “The solution to pollution is dilution.” This is dangerous!)
The fluoride chemicals being used to fluoridate drinking water are: hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate, and sodium fluoride. Unlike the fluoride compounds found in toothpaste or supplements, water fluoridation chemicals are not pharmaceutical grade quality. They are, instead, unpurified industrial by-products that are collected in the air pollution control systems of certain industries.
Calcium fluoride, which occurs naturally, is not included in the Poisons List. This is because natural fluoride is not very soluble in water. Substances used in the artificial fluoridation of the public water supply are *sodium fluoride (NaF), sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6), and hydrofluosilicic acid (H2SiF6). These artificial fluorides are highly soluble in water.