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

UK Against Fluoridation

Sunday, July 31, 2016

USA - Harbor Beach says water mishap was human error

  • By Bradley Massman Tribune Staff Writer
HARBOR BEACH — City officials now say a contamination of the Harbor Beach water supply two weeks ago that left residents without water for roughly 60 hours was the result of a human error, not a malfunction of equipment.
Two officials and a drinking water emergency report submitted to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and obtained by the Tribune on Friday confirmed the “malfunction” was actually a human error.
Initially, the contamination was reported as an aluminum sulfate transfer pump malfunction, where an over-feed of aluminum sulfate entered the city’s water system early on Sunday, July 17. Residents were without usable water until 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, July 19.
“I wasn’t just sure what had happened,” city Water Superintendent Clark Creguer told the Tribune in regards to initially calling the incident a malfunction. “It was basically a malfunction because human error was involved.”

According to the written report, Harbor Beach water operator Rick Murawske contacted Cregeur, around 5:30 a.m. Sunday to notify him that, “he was having trouble with the filters shutting down because of high turbidity.”
Murawske called back shortly after and informed Cregeur he inadvertently left the aluminum sulfate transfer pump on overnight, the report states.
Upon his arrival at the plant, Cregeur determined that Murawske pumped around 15,000 pounds of aluminum sulfate, nearly emptying the tank, into the water system.
The aluminum made the water unusable and residents could notice a change in color and taste when they began using city water Sunday morning. Residents began notifying city officials of the problem.
While the water was contaminated it is not believed to have caused any health problems or injuries.....

No worries then...

Village of the damned: Mysterious suicides. Agonising illness. And ...

19 Apr 2014 - All three came into contact with the poisoned Camelford water and all were ... in the brain, contamination which almost certainly gave rise to protein ... the amount of aluminium in the water after the incident was somewhere ...

How to Care for Your Teeth! with David Wolfe

Brita filters do not remove fluoride and only 10% of the UK is fluoridated.

Saturday, July 30, 2016

Vaccines: “Preventing Every Bad Thing”

By Jon Rappoport

get-attachment (43)We begin with this: “Administration of KMV (killed measles vaccine) apparently set in motion an aberrant immunologic response that not only failed to protect children against natural measles, but resulted in heightened susceptibility.” JAMA Aug. 22, 1980, vol. 244, p. 804, Vincent Fulginiti and Ray Helfer. The authors indicate that such children can come down with “an often severe, atypical form of measles. Atypical measles is characterized by fever, headache… and a diverse rash (which)… may consist of a mixture of macules, papules, vesicles, and pustules…”

In other words, the measles vaccine can create a worse form of measles. This is not the normal form of the illness, from which children routinely recover with the bonus of lifetime immunity. No, this is a severe, atypical, dangerous, synthetic, vaccine-induced disease.

Now read this: “…the window of vulnerability of an infant may be even greater in vaccinated women than in with women with natural measles infection.” (Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 79(5), 2008, pp. 787–792).

Translation: Measles occurring in infants—which is unusual and dangerous—is more likely to occur when the mother has been vaccinated against measles. Why? Because she no longer passes down, to her child, the natural components of immunity to measles.

This stunning finding can apply across the board, for all vaccines and all childhood illnesses.

Vaccinated mothers, who would ordinarily pass down natural immune factors to their babies, often don’t.............

Australia - Fluoride in drinking water can be dangerous

Tasmania has had the benefit of fluoridated water since 1953 and Tasmanians have the worst teeth in Australia. How does that add up? 
Has the Grattan Institute researched toothpaste sales per head of population in Mildura compared to the state average? Now that might show an inverse correlation: less toothpaste used, more decay. 
Stop the fluoride push; it’s not only not good for you (ie, ineffective), it’s actually bad for you in almost too many ways to count.
I might add that if the Grattan institute researched the amount of fast food and soft drinks used by the population of Sunraysia, especially the younger generation, they would find that diet has a major impact on tooth decay. 
The effect of fluoride on teeth is at best is only helpful (if at all) on very young children and only if they use fluoridated toothpaste. 
There is plenty of peer proven evidence to say that fluoride in drinking water is dangerous especially for people with major illnesses like diabetes, kidney disease and others.
Why are many towns and cities in the US, Canada and even Queensland removing it? It corrodes metal pipelines, how can it be healthy for human consumption?
Bette Schultz,

Red Cliffs

Friday, July 29, 2016


Hardin City Council

Hardin has joined the growing number of municipalities taking action against fluoridating its water. The Hardin City Council passed a motion Tuesday night reaffirming its stance to keep the town’s water supply free of fluoride.
The discontinuation was unanimously approved following local resident Corey Kenney’s presentation of concerns. Kenney, an opponent of water fluoridation, believes the chemical additive to be hazardous to public health. 
“About seven years ago, when I first Googled fluoride being added into our drinking water, I presented articles [to the city council] about fluoride treatment,” Kenney said. “And a couple of years ago, I gave similar information about the overwhelmingly negative research on water fluoridation. With three dams and no industry above us, we have some of the most pristine municipal water in America, so why would we willingly add fluoride? [It is] an industrial waste by-product of aluminum manufacturers.”.......................

NZ - Fluoride work claim rejected at health board meeting

Nelson Marlborough Health community and public health advisory committee chairwoman Judy Crowe.Nelson Marlborough Health community and public health advisory committee chairwoman Judy Crowe.

A Nelson Marlborough District Health Board member's claim that it was embarking on "water fluoridation by stealth" has led to a tense exchange with board leaders.

Board chairwoman Jenny Black called for a recess at a meeting of the community and public health advisory committee on Tuesday after she said committee chairwoman Judy Crowe was "abusing" her power.
Crowe raised concerns about an agenda item concerning the board's involvement with the South Island Public Health Partnership.
The three South Island Public Health units have agreed in principle to form an alliance with community water fluoridation - identified as one of three initial projects in the agenda item.
The board has said it would not engage in discussions about water fluoridation until after the Government passed legislation to transfer decision-making powers on the issue to health boards.
Crowe voiced concerns that the board was telling the community its hands were tied until legislation was passed but at the same time "lining our ducks up" to endorse community water fluoridation.
She said the board was "falling short in honouring our values of integrity and respect".
"The South Island Public Health Partnership's involvement will be nothing short of water fluoridation by stealth and what I am concerned about is we are leaving our consumers still in the starting blocks."

Chief executive Chris Fleming intervened to reject Crowe's claim and said she had crossed the line into individual campaigning. "We are not engaging in debate on fluoride because it is not on our programme at the moment. We are not doing things to line things up behind the scenes, we are working with the publicly-elected Government."
Black said Crowe was in a governance position and had a responsibility to uphold to the policies and procedures of the health board. Crowe said she was speaking because of concerns raised by the public.

Black said she did not believe that was the case. "You are in a position of power at the moment and I think you are abusing it." Black called for the meeting to be recessed, which was seconded by all advisory committee members. When the meeting resumed, there was no further discussion about fluoride.

When contacted after the meeting, Crowe said she was unable to comment and said all requests for comment were to be directed through Black. Black said the board policy was that Fleming and herself were the only spokespeople for the health board.

- Stuff

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Fluoride-induced headkidney macrophage cell apoptosis involves activation of CaMKIIg-ERK 1/2-Caspase-8 axis: role of superoxide in initiating the apoptotic cascade

Fluoride is known to induce apoptosis though the mechanisms remain obscure. The aim of present study was to understand the underlying molecular mechanisms of fluoride-induced apoptosis using fish headkidney macrophages (HKM). Exposure to fluori
de triggered HKM cell apoptosis as evidenced by Hoechst 333432 and AnnexinV-Propidium iodide staining, presence of internucleosomal DNA ladder and comet assay. Our results suggest the influx of extra-cellular Ca2+ to be an initial event in fluoride-induced HKM cell apoptosis. We observed persistently elevated levels of superoxide anion and our inhibitor studies with EGTA suggested the primal role of Ca2+ flux on triggering superoxide production in fluoride-exposed HKM cells. Fluoride exposure led to elevated levels of Ca2+/CaM dependent protein kinase II gamma (CaMKIIg) and pre-treatment with the inhibitor KN-93 but not its inactive structural analogue KN-92, reduced the number of apoptotic cells establishing the pro-apoptotic role of CaMKIIg in fluoride-induced HKM cell apoptosis. We report that the sustained superoxide generation is primarily responsible for the increased CaMKIIg levels observed in fluoride-exposed HKM cells. Our inhibitor studies further implicated CaMKIIg in the activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1 and 2 (ERK 1/ 2) culminating in caspase-8/caspase-3 mediated apoptosis of HKM cells. We conclude that fluoride-induced apoptosis is largely dependent on Ca2+ induced superoxide generation leading to elevation in CaMKIIg which in turn induces the phosphorylation of ERK1/2 and downstream activation of extrinsic caspase cascade in HKM cells.

No idea what the above is saying but you might.

Fluoride and Children

The highest doses of fluoride are going to bottle-fed babies.

Baby Drinking
Due to their sole reliance on liquids for food intake, infants consuming formula made with fluoridated water have the highest exposure to fluoride, by bodyweight, in the population.
Because infant exposure to fluoridated water has been repeatedly found to be a major risk factor for developing dental fluorosis later in life (Marshall 2004; Hong 2006; Levy 2010), a number of dental researchers have recommended parents of newborns not use fluoridated water when reconstituting formula (Ekstrand 1996; Pendrys 1998; Fomon 2000; Brothwell 2003; Marshall 2004). Even the American Dental Association (ADA), the most ardent institutional proponent of fluoridation, distributed a November 6, 2006 email alert to its members recommending that parents be advised that formula should be made with low or no-fluoride water. Unfortunately, neither the ADA nor its Australian equivalent have taken action to get this information into the hands of parents. As a result, many parents remain unaware of the fluorosis risk from infant exposure to fluoridated water.
In 2012 the US state of New Hampshire passed a law stating that parents will require notification that 6-month-olds should not be routinely fed infant formula mixed with fluoridated water to avoid discolouring babies unerupted teeth (fluorosis). Passed by the House, 253-23, unanimously by the Senate, and signed by the Governor, HB-1416 reads: If a public water supply is fluoridated, the following notice shall be posted in the water systems consumer confidence report:
“Your public water supply is fluoridated. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, if your child under the age of 6 months is exclusively consuming infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, there may be an increased chance of dental fluorosis. Consult your child’s health care provider for more information.”

Fluoride may cause dental fluorosis.

The fluoridation program has massively failed to achieve one of its key objectives, i.e., to lower dental decay rates while limiting the occurrence of dental fluorosis (a discolouring of tooth enamel caused by too much fluoride). The goal of the early promoters of fluoridation was to limit dental fluorosis (in its very mild form) to 10% of children (NRC 1993, pp. 6-7). In 2010, however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 41% of American adolescents had dental fluorosis, with 8.6% having mild fluorosis and 3.6% having either moderate or severe dental fluorosis (Beltran-Aguilar 2010). As the 41% prevalence figure is a national average and includes children living in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas, the fluorosis rate in fluoridated communities will obviously be higher. The British Governments York Review estimated that up to 48% of children in fluoridated areas worldwide have dental fluorosis in all forms, with 12.5% having fluorosis of aesthetic concern (McDonagh, 2000).

Fluoride may cause non-IQ neurotoxic effects.

Reduced IQ is not the only neurotoxic effect that may result from fluoride exposure. At least three human studies have reported an association between fluoride exposure and impaired visual-spatial organization (Calderon 2000; Li 2004; Rocha-Amador 2009); while four other studies have found an association between prenatal fluoride exposure and fetal brain damage (Han 1989; Du 1992; Dong 1993; Yu 1996).

Poisonous Fluoride Toothpaste In Ghana

In 2013, modern Ghana.com published an article from The Independent newspaper which revealed the potential danger of fluoridated toothpaste. It adds that “When The Independent contacted (via phone) the office of the Ghana Dental Association on its findings, a gentleman who answered told the paper to verify its findings before contacting the association.Taking a defensive stance, the gentleman asked which drug in the world was not poisonous. He added that the Independent should find out what quantity of fluoride made it poisonous or toxic adding that excess intake of water also had side-effects.” [1]
Undoubtedly, everything under this sun can be poisonous when in excess, and so I side with the officer from the Ghana Dental Association (GDA). However, I believe there is the need to always find prudent ways to prevent occurrence of overdose or excess accumulation of suchbeneficial substances. Too much of everything is known to be bad, yet I ask this rhetorical question: how much is too much? Anyway let’s talk about fluoride. Do Ghanaians really need it in their toothpaste? Is fluoridated toothpaste doing Ghanaians any good? What will our toothpaste manufacturers lose when they take fluoride out of their product (toothpaste)? It is certain that in Ghana, there are some minerals including fluoride which exist already in underground water and our natural water bodies (streams, boreholes, wells, rivers etc). Fluoride in particular is known to be abundant in Ghana especially in the northern regions of Ghana as revealed by the Upper East regional hospital and the Ghana medical journal. They report that; “In a related survey conducted by the Regional Hospital for the Upper East Region in the Nayorigo community in 2005, in order to have firsthand information about the prevalence of dental fluorosis, 90 % of the respondents were affected by the condition, with fluoride levels above 4.0 ppm. Based on that study which did not include the Bongo District, it was projected that more than 50 % of the children in the District were affected. Recent study revealed that the fluorosis incidence was 63% in the Bongo Township, which thus confirms the projected value by the Regional Hospital.”[2] This means there is the possibility of naturally occurring fluoride in most if not all of our drinking water, but to some extent like the case in the northern regions, our drinking water may even contain more than what is considered safe. For now let’s assume that the fluoride in our drinking water is within the so calledacceptable limit [although it may be more]. If we are having our water already fluoridated (say naturally), it means any additional substance containing significant amount of fluoride should be considered as nothing but a poison.
America has most of its water fluoridated and hence it considers all fluoridated toothpaste as poison, all fluoridated toothpaste in America thus bear poison warning signs on their label or tube. Even as Israeli government is still considering adding some fluoride to its drinking water this year, its Local authorities seek to inform the public so people who have been giving their children fluoride drops or using fluoride toothpaste can stop doing so. [3] Why then would Ghanaians be using fluoride toothpaste when of course not only is our water containing some fluoride but some of our foods, drinks, medicines and even chemicals? I couldn’t believe it when I heard a dentist suggesting to Ghanaians to use fluoride toothpaste to brush three times (3x) daily or eight hourly. Dr. Asante Appiah, President of the Ghana Dental Association (GDA) in December 2015, who according to the chronicle.com, suggested to Unilever Ghana Limited to extend its campaign to brushing three times a day – after every eight hours. With this proposal, he would want the company to package the product in such a way that it would be convenient carrying it around, especially, in the case of women and school children, for use after lunch. [4] Like Dr. Asante, Most dentists are convinced that fluoride is good for teeth and that there is no evidence that it does harm - apart from the occasional case of cosmetic dental fluorosis. They point out that in the ten years after fluoride toothpastes were introduced in 1973, dental disease in children fell so dramatically that some dentistry schools had to be closed. Mike Lennon, the Professor of Dental Public Health at the University of Liverpool and a spokesman for the British Dental Association, acknowledges that until the early Nineties some overenthusiastic parents were encouraging children to use too much fluoride toothpaste. I believe that Dr. Asante is also being over enthusiastic to encourage Ghanaian children use and hence accumulate excess fluoride in their system. But some concern dentists like Tony Lees, from Herefordshire, a dentist for over 40 years, believes that fluoride should be banned from toothpastes and water. The marginal benefit it displays for teeth does not outweigh its general dangers, he says. "In the scale of toxicity, fluorides fall between arsenic and lead," he says. "Dental fluorosis is not just a cosmetic problem, but the visible sign of chronic fluoride poisoning, and children are more vulnerable than adults." Anyone overdosing on fluoride, he says, is in danger of developing chronic skeletal fluorosis, which can weaken bones and cause arthritis. It is again not surprising that America will require poison mandatory warning on every tube of fluoridated toothpaste: "In case of accidental ingestion, seek professional assistance or contact a poison center immediately." [5]
Fluoride toothpastes sold in the U.S. generally contain between 1,100 and 1,450 parts per million (ppm) fluoride (the equivalent of over 1 mg of fluoride for each gram of paste). Although the fine print on the back of the toothpaste tube instructs users not to swallow and to use only a “pea-sized” amount, advertisements continue to depict heaping swirls of paste on the brush, [6], and manufacturers continue to market fluoride toothpastes in bubble-gum, fruit, and candy-like flavors [7]. Using child-appealing flavors is particularly dangerous because young children have poorly developed swallowing reflexes, and invariably swallow large amounts of the paste they add to the brush. In most part of Africa, particularly Ghana, the fluoride in toothpastes are mostly over 1400 parts per million.
According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry: “Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion.” [8]
Acute fluoride poisoning, which occurs at doses as low as 0.1 to 0.3 mg per kg of bodyweight, generally presents in the form of gastric pain, nausea, vomiting, headache, dizziness, and flu-like symptoms. [9],[10]. Although it is believed that many poisoning incidents from fluoride toothpaste go undiagnosed and unreported [11], the number of calls to Poison Control Centers in the U.S. for fluoride poisonings from toothpaste has skyrocketed since the FDA issued its poison warning. Indeed, in the early 1990s (prior to the FDA’s warning), there were about 1,000 poisoning reports each year from fluoride toothpaste. [11]. Today, there are over 23,000 reports a year, resulting in hundreds of emergency room treatments.

Among some individuals, the use of fluoride toothpaste may cause or aggravate perioral dermatitis (a rosacea-like skin rash around the mouth). [12]. The condition usually appears in women between the ages of 20 and 50. Where fluoride toothpaste is the cause of the condition, significant improvement in symptoms will be experienced within a few weeks of using a non-fluoridated toothpaste. In addition to dermatitis, fluoride toothpaste may also cause stomatitis (i.e., mouth ulcers, “canker sores”). [13].
Perhaps the most important, yet overlooked, risk from excessive ingestion of fluoride toothpaste, is the impact it can have on blood glucose and insulin levels. In the 1980s, researchers at the University of Indiana reported that rats receiving acute, but relatively small, doses (0.5 mg/kg) of fluoride, had significantly higher glucose levels in their blood, and decreased levels of insulin. [14][15]. Since that time, numerous studies have repeated this finding (in both animals and humans) at doses which many children routinely ingest from fluoride toothpaste. It is now estimated, for example, that blood fluoride levels of just 95 ppb produce an increase in glucose levels and a decrease in insulin. [16]. Strikingly, this level is routinely exceeded by about 5 to 10% of children using fluoride toothpaste (particularly those living in fluoridated communities)[17]. As noted earlier Ghana is not a non-fluoridated community, thus not only our children but all and sundry stand a greater chance to have excess accumulation of fluoride. Our geographic location and high temperature makes our thirst for more water inevitable, making us ingest reasonable or excess amount of fluoride. I pray you begin to understand why we need to get rid of all fluoride containing toothpaste, food and or drinks in Ghana, whether they fall within acceptablerange or not.
The summer of 2012 saw the publication of a systematic review and meta-analysis by researchers at Harvard University that explored the link between exposure to fluoride and neurological and cognitive function among children. According to the team, even much less dose of fluoride was capable to affect brain function especially IQ;“the results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that can cause toxicity in adults.” [18]
A 2013 study published in the journal Archives of Toxicology showed a link between fluoride exposure and male infertility in mice. The study’s findings suggest that sodium fluoride impairs the ability of sperm cells in mice to normally fertilize the egg through a process known as chemotaxis. [19] Now it’s clear that even the so called minimal dose of fluoride has potential harm on an individual consumer. It is believed that, these fluoride toothpaste contain fluoride not from natural origin (synthetic fluoride) and many people want to know where such fluoride really comes from,as well as the original purpose for which the synthetic fluoride were made. Some Chinese vendors of fluoride advertise on their website that their product can be used as an “adhesive preservative”, an “insecticide” as well as a” flux for soldering and welding”.[20] One Chinese manufacturer, Shanghai Polymet Commodities Ltd., which produces fluoride destined for municipal water reserves in the United States, notes on their website that their fluoride is “highly corrosive to human skin and harmful to people’s respiratory organs”. [21]
Large numbers of people in Japan, China, India, the Middle East, and Africa have been diagnosed with skeletal fluorosis from drinking naturally fluoridated water. In India alone, nearly a million people suffer from the affliction.[22] It will therefore be suicidal for Ghana to be adding fluoride to toothpaste to subject her children to the cruel effects of excess fluoride accumulation. I will be very happy to hear in few months from now that Ghana will use fluoride free toothpaste or better still have a poison warning sign on the tubes of all fluoridated toothpaste. Manufacturers should be happy to welcome this information, apart from saving Ghanaians from fluoride toxicity and its associated disorders; they will save cost of production by taking fluoride out of their ingredients

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

NZ - Fluoride off health board agenda until legislation passed

Nelson Marlborough District Health Board will not discuss fluoride until legislation is passed to hand the ...
Tom Carnegie
Nelson Marlborough District Health Board will not discuss fluoride until legislation is passed to hand the responsibility to district health boards
Nelson Marlborough District Health Board will not discuss water fluoridation despite some members of the public raising concerns.
The health board decided it would not discuss the potential fluoridation of the region's water until government legislation determined who is responsible for the decision. 
Nelson resident Carleen Reich-Simko​ addressed advisory committee members of the health board at a meeting on Tuesday over her concerns about water fluoridation. 
The former orthodontist assistant said she used to condone the use of fluoride, felt differently after reading a toothpaste tube warning with instructions to call the poison centre if more than a pea-sized amount of toothpaste was swallowed.

She said further research showed there was overwhelming evidence fluoride damaged the human body including tissues, bones and the brain.
"Using a water supply to deliver any substance is a bad idea," she said. "You can't control the dosage, you can't control who gets it and it takes away my right and everyone else's rights in the community to what they choose to ingest in their body."
She questioned why only one board member attended the recent talk by chemistry professor and toxicologist Paul Connett and no one took the time to present contrary scientific evidence, or debate the issue.
Board chair Jenny Black said no work was being done by the health board in regards to water fluoridation before the legislation was passed by the Government to hand the responsibility over.
At the last health board meeting in June it was decided that discussion on fluoride in the district was on hold until legislation came through in 2018.
In April, the Government announced plans to transfer decision-making powers for fluoridating water supplies away from local authorities to district health boards.
Legislation to shift fluoridation from local councils to district health boards would come before Parliament by the end of the year. If the bill was passed, it was likely the changes would come into force from mid-2018.
Fluoride would not be discussed as part of the meeting agenda each month.
A one page document had been sent to all board members to assist them with answering questions on fluoride. It also contained other positive actions the health board were undertaking in the oral health area, including the tap into water campaign. 
All emails regarding fluoride would be responded to in the same way with people referred to the Nelson Marlborough Health website and the Ministry of Health. 

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Open Parachute - Dental health – it’s not all about fluoride

Fluoride is not the only factor in oral health. But it is generally the only element in drinking water considered for its effect on our teeth.
Drinking water fluoride benefits existing teeth by chemically reacting with the tooth surface. Involvement of fluoride in the apatite structure at the tooth surface helps prevent demineralisation, due to acid attack, and also encourages remineralisation – tooth enamel repair.
But fluoride is not the only chemical species in drinking water and food that promotes this reaction at the tooth surface. Calcium and phosphate must also be involved. (Bioapatites in teeth and bones are chemical compounds of calcium, phosphate and fluoride). However, these other ions have generally been neglected in studies of the effects of drinking water composition on dental health.
I recently came across a scientific paper which helps overcome this deficiency:
Bruvo, M., Ekstrand, K., Arvin, E., Spliid, H., Moe, D., Kirkeby, S., & Bardow, A. (2008). Optimal Drinking Water Composition for Caries Control in Populations. Journal of Dental Research, 87(4), 340–343.
It compared the dental health of Danish children with the most significant drinking water characteristics. Data for the decayed missing and filled tooth surfaces (DMF-S) of 15 year old schoolchildren were used.  The drinking water characteristics included the concentration of a range of cations and anions, organic carbon, hardness, pH, ionic strength and residue content.
Statistical analysis identified calcium and fluoride as having the major effect and the authors used their data to produce a model relating DMF-S to both calcium and fluoride. The figure below give some idea of predictions from this model.
Ca and F
The model explains about 45% of the variance – better than when fluoride is considered alone (Ekstrand et al., 2003 were able to explain 35% of the variance using fluoride alone).
Community water fluoridation is not used in Denmark but the natural concentration of fluoride in the drinking waters reported in this study ranged from 0.06 – 1.61 (mean 0.33) mg F/L. The concentration of calcium ranged from 31.4 – 162.3 (mean 83.5) mg Ca/L.
So, a result that is hardly surprising for chemists familiar with the surface chemistry of apatites. But it does suggest that perhaps health authorities should consider the calcium concentration of drinking waters as well as fluoride.
According to the authors optimal drinking water should contain medium concentrations of both ions – about 90 mg Ca/L and 0.75 mg F/L. I suspect our drinking water calcium concentrations in New Zealand tend to be lower than this.
Perhaps this is something to think about. And perhaps those anti-fluoride fanatics who use distillation or reverse osmosis to remove fluoride are also forgoing the oral health benefits of calcium. A case of throwing out two babies with the bath water.
Comment from   soundhill1 
“Perhaps this is something to think about. And perhaps those anti-fluoride fanatics who use distillation or reverse osmosis to remove fluoride are also forgoing the oral health benefits of calcium”
So perhaps the Ministry of Health and Ken should stop saying concerned parents of infants can use filters.

NZ - Fluoride could become DHB election issue

District Health Board elections will be held in September and October this year.
Providing health care to an aging population and fluoride are likely to be issues in the upcoming Taranaki DHB elections.
Decisions about putting fluoride in the water are now made by District Health Boards, not councils.
However, Taranaki DHB chairwoman Pauline Lockett doesn't want people to stand for the DHB just to change its stance on fluoride, she said.
"I would hope people would bring a far broader perspective than coming with one item they think they can change. Our role is ensuring good health outcomes for the community of Taranaki."
Lockett was one of five board members who were appointed by the Minister of Health, as was deputy chairwoman Sally Webb who lives in Whakatane.
The other seven members were elected, but stood for Taranaki as a whole, not according to where they lived.
Voting papers will be issued between September 16 and 21 and voting ends on October 8.
Hawera health advocate Jenny Nager, who was on the board for the 2007-2010 term, said it was important to elect people from across the province, even though technically those elected were supposed to represent the whole of Taranaki.
"Otherwise they don't know what is happening in the community."
The health board needed a wide variety of people with different skills, she said.
"We do have an aging population. And the number of people at the lower socio economic end require more help. And Maori health is always an issue."
Lockett said anyone thinking of standing for the DHB didn't necessarily need to come from a medical background, but they needed to know what was going on in the community.
"It's important to have an understanding of our community particularly those with high needs within the community. And a willingness to build health services as part of the wider social sector."
Candidates would also need an understanding of DHB business, that it's not just about the hospitals, she said.
"It's actually the wider community investment we are making in health services as well. They need an appreciation of the needs of the community within that medical perspective." 
Grey Power health representative Agnes Lehrke said it was important for Taranaki to have good representation on "this very important board."
"We want good representation on our behalf therefore it is a must to hear what each likely candidate will bring to meetings in representation of us. Consumers are at the forefront of today's Health Strategy, therefore we need genuine consumer representation."
Forget the qualifications and eloquent speakers, just seek enthusiastic consumer rights' campaigners, she said.
"There are many issues very lacking in our health system that the right determined representatives can advocate for change and bring accomplishment for us."

USA - City Council To Get Rid Of Fluoride?

TONY BROWN Daily News-Recor

HARRISONBURG — The use of sodium fluoride in public drinking water to prevent tooth decay, hailed by many as a public health breakthrough but decried by others, could be headed down the drain in the city.
Thanks to a leaky tank at the water treatment plant, Harrisonburg City Council on Tuesday will consider repealing, at least temporarily but possibly permanently, the 1973 ordinance requiring the addition of fluoride to the municipal water supply.
City Attorney Chris Brown said in a memo to City Manager Kurt Hodgen that he doesn’t want the city to break its own laws while the fluoridation system is shut down so that the tank that holds the chemical compound can be replaced.
“We have no mechanism by which we can suspend the ordinance,” Brown said in an interview Friday. “So, we will have to repeal it.”
Meanwhile, Mike Collins, city director of utilities, said he believes the decade-old leaky tank provides a good opportunity to study whether replacing the tank every 10 years, on top of spending $20,000 a year on supplies to treat the water with fluoride, is a good way to spend taxpayer dollars.
“We need time to scope it out,” Collins said. “And we need time to fix it. In addition to replacing the tank, we need to do other improvements.
“There are a significant number of assets needed to fluoridate water. It is introduced to the water using an acid, and there are side effects that affect the life of other assets besides the tank.”
Collins said he didn’t yet know how much it would cost to replace the tank and make the other improvements.
In his memo, Brown said, “Many localities have determined that there is little benefit of fluoridation of water systems when compared to the significant costs associated with fluoridation.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which calls fluoridation of water one of the greatest health improvements of the 20th century, says it costs an average of $1.02 per person per year. Public water fluoridation is also endorsed by the American Dental Association and other groups.
About 66 percent of the U.S. population consumes fluoridated water, the CDC says.
But some U.S. municipalities and counties that once fluoridated have decided to stop, saying there are many other ways children and adults get fluoridation treatment, including toothpaste, gels and mouthwashes.
In the Shenandoah Valley, fluoridation of the public water supply divided the town of Timberville for 18 months in 2008-09 before Town Council voted 4-3 to continue the practice.
Amherst County decided to end the practice in 2014. Earlier this year, Albuquerque, N.M., did, too.
In other parts of the industrialized world, fluoridation of water is the exception, not the rule, including Western Europe. Consumers in some countries are offered a choice of buying fluoridated salt and milk. Fluoride is a naturally occurring chemical in many underground water supplies and rivers.
Opposition forces include the Fluoride Action Network and its website, fluoridealert.org. The group questions the use of fluoride in dental cleaning products in addition to opposing its use in water. The group cites health concerns, calling fluoride a poison that can damage teeth, as well as individual rights over what people consume.
Opposition to the practice has been around as long as the practice itself.
Scientific investigation of the use of fluoride to prevent tooth decay has roots in the early 19th century. Using fluoride in public water supplies has been around since 1945 and became widespread in the 1960s.
During and after the Red Scare of the 1950s, some opponents of fluoridation of public water drinking supplies claimed it was a communist plot. Famously, that argument was lampooned in Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 film comedy “Dr. Strangelove.” In the movie, a character named Gen. Jack D. Ripper says he believes that fluoridation threatens the “purity of essence” of his “precious bodily fluids.”
But in 2016 in Harrisonburg, the issue is money, Collins said.
“There is a lot of information out there about fluoridation,” he said. “A lot of people are for it, and some people are against it. We just need to scope it out and see if it is worth it.”
Contact Tony Brown at 574-6286 or tbrown@dnronline.com

Attorney Michael Connett summarizes 10 basic facts about fluoride that should be considered in any discussion about whether to fluoridate water

Worth seeing again.

Monday, July 25, 2016

We are all liars apparently

ConnFACT lies about fluoridation

We hadn’t heard of anyone actually opposed to water fluoridation since Colonel Jack D Ripper (Sterling Hayden) complained to Colonel Lionel Mandrake (Peter Sellers) in his famous “precious bodily fluids” rant in Dr. Strangelove.
ConnFACT lies about fluoridationBut we heard a great deal in a talk given last spring by members of ConnFACT about the dangers of mandatory water fluoridation. We had already interviewed the speakers, Carol Peringer and Christine O’Day, noting that ConnFACT stands for Connecticut Families Against Chemical Trespass, a group that seems to specialize in taking positions contrary to all accepted science. In fact, you have to wonder what rational group would talk about “chemical trespass.” What chemicals? How about water or salt?
The sparsely attended meeting featured a half-hour film “Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation,” full of quotes from marginal and fringe scientists decrying the use of fluoridation. A few were actually qualified, but many, like the Earl Baldwin of Bewley were just spouting nonsense. Also in attendance were representatives of Professional Water Systems, who subsidized the printing of the slick handouts.
Fluoridation works by having fluoride ions replace some of the hydroxyl ions in the mineral making up our teeth: hydroxyapatite becomes fluoroapatite, which is harder and resistant to tooth decay. Fluoride, furthermore is naturally occurring in our soil and in most drinking water: it is only the concentration that is adjusted to a level determined to do the most good. Moreover, water fluoridation is considered the single greatest public health advance of the 20th century.
Erroneous Assertions
However, the overriding problem with their presentation was nearly every statement they made was easily determined to be untrue.
Fluoride causes bone cancer:  Not according to the American Cancer Society
Fluoride increases risk of bone fracture: Not according to the paper in Nature by Thomas.
Fluoride decreases brain function: There is one study of naturally occurring high levels of fluoride in China where there may be some effect, but their control groups had the same level of fluoride as are recommended in the US. Thus standard fluoridation levels are perfectly safe.  And, as Steve Novella pointed out in Science Based Medicine, these were not experiments, but retrospective studies.
Fluoride causes diabetes: The American Diabetes Association recommends brushing twice a day with a fluoride toothpaste, and the CDC finds no problem for diabetics drinking fluoridated water.
Fluoride causes kidney disease: According to reviews by the American Kidney Foundation, there is no evidence that drinking fluoridated water is harmful to or causes kidney disease.
Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor: The WHO’s extensive report on fluoride’s effects on humans specifically says that no endocrine effects are observed in rats at any concentration (pp 95-96).
Fluoride accumulates in the body; the benefit is topical, not systemic. Contradictory and both wrong. The European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks says that fluoride builds up in the plasma and is eventually excreted. Some ends up in the saliva where it can react to protect the teeth. Some will end up in the bones, but does not stay there.
Dental Fluorosis
By far the biggest objection that anti-fluoridation crowd makes is that fluoride can cause a sort of tooth enamel mottling called fluorosis.  Fluorosis is caused by excess fluoride consumption before the teeth erupt, and is divided into Questionable, Very Mild, Mild, Moderate and Severe. The first three categories are only apparent to a specialist, and while Moderate may involve brown staining, the teeth are still healthy and resistant to decay.  Only about 1-2% of all patients show Moderate and Severe fluorosis, and that is cause by very high dosages of naturally occurring fluoride in the water supply, far higher than would ever occur in water fluoridated for dental health.
According to the CDC: among persons aged 6-49, 16.5% had questionable fluorosis, 16.0% had very mild fluorosis, 4.8% had mild fluorosis, 2.0% had moderate fluorosis, and less than 1% had severe fluorosis. Adding these up gives you the relatively meaningless number of about 39%. And in the teenager sub-category, that number is 41%. However, claiming that 41% of teenagers have dental fluorosis is seriously misleading, because the lower categories aren’t even visible, let aloneharmful. Using this scary number in their literature as ConnFACT has done is intentionally misleading at the very least.
Fertilizer byproduct
One of the most mendacious assertions of the anti-fluoridation crowd is in their description of how water is fluoridated. Fluoride is obtained as a byproduct of fertilizer manufacture mostly in the form of fluorosilicic acid. They claim without any evidence that these byproducts are contaminated with heavy metals and are just “dumped” into the drinking water supply. This is simply false. Any additive to our drinking water must pass safety standards of the American Waterworks Association, the EPA, and NSF International (page 42). Opponents have made up this lie to make fluoridation seem dangerous or contaminated. This is simply untrue.
Misrepresentation of Fluoridation Facts in Europe
Their handout suggests that “most other countries banned fluoridation,” which is demonstrably false. In fact, most European water supplies are not fluoridated because of their size and age, and because of multiple water sources. Instead fluoride is provided in their table salt.
They suggest that Cuba discontinued fluoridation and caries did not increase, but in fact Cuban children receive fluoride mouth rinses regularly  and fluoride varnish treatments several times a year.
They suggest that water fluoridation in Kuopio, Finland was ceased in 1992, but that caries has decreased or remained the same. In fact, virtually all children took advantage of government dental care which included topical fluoride and dental sealant programs.
They suggest that two towns in East Germany, Chemniz and Plauen, saw a significant fall in caries after fluoridation was stopped, but again neglect to mention fluoridated salt, rinses and sealants.
Each of these cases is also summarized (in that same order) in the ADA report Fluoridation Facts, where they may well have drawn their summary from, conveniently leaving out the facts that fluoride treatments of other types replaced fluoridation. In other words, they are lying.
They also mention Landrigan and Grandjean’s discredited Lancet Neurology paper which calls fluoride a neurotoxin. Critics have called the authors “long time toxic terrorists,” who completely ignore dose-response information in order to write papers calculated to scare people. They also confuse correlation and causation.
Finally, the ConnFACT handout asserts that there are studies showing that there is no link between fluoride and cavity reduction. They cite this study by Warrren et. al.  to prove that assertion, but Warren’s study was on the optimum fluoride level to minimize dental fluorosis among caries-free children. But they did note that children with caries had slightly lower fluoride intakes (as you might expect). The ConnFACT handout also claims that Cheng’s study in theBritish Medical Journal concludes there is a lack of strong evidence for fluoride’s benefits. That isn’t true either. Cheng asserts that the optimum fluoride level is difficult to establish exactly.
They also state that there have never been any randomized clinical trials demonstrating fluoridation effectiveness.  Another fib. Just read the summary of studies on this early CDC page.
No matter how well intended the speakers were, the materials they were working from can best be described as a tissue of lies. And when we discovered that their assertions were cribbed from an ADA Report with critical facts removed, it is clear that this lying was intentional.
  • None of the health assertions they make are true.
  • None of the papers they quote say what they say they do.
  • None of the assertions about dangers of fluoridation are true.
Like Joe Isuzu, knowingly or not, they are lying about every aspect of fluoridation.
So every argument or evidence put forward by those opposed to fluoride are false.
While all those proposed by the proponents are without doubt completely truthful no bias there then.

More revelations  from previous articles.

Organic isn’t better: it is a marketing slogan.
The safety of MSG is firmly established and need not trouble us further.