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

UK Against Fluoridation

Saturday, December 31, 2016


From Ellen: Industry's Fluoride Emissions

An often forgotten source of exposure to fluoride comes from the millions of pounds of fluoride that are legally released each year across America from industry. And it is the fate of these industrial releases that we need to be concerned about as these releases pollute our bodies, air, water, soil, and wildlife.

The Toxic Release Inventory (commonly known as TRI) is managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and allows one to find information on specific industrial releases by city, zip code, county, state, and year. (See the Overview for the criteria used by TRI.) Canada has something similar (National Pollutant Release Inventory) and FAN will do a breakdown of the Canadian fluoride releases in the future as it’s relevant for the border areas of both countries.

I have tried to include the wealth of data that the TRI contains on the fluoride compounds they list with the following (available in FAN's Research section):

For those who live near, or downwind, fluoride-emitting industries: a source of exposure for young children is their tendency to put non-food objects into their mouth. Education in areas surrounding these industries should include the message that children’s toys should not be left outside and that those with vegetable gardens, fruit trees or berry bushes, should wash all produce before eating.

It’s important to know that not all industries or sources that release fluoride into the environment are included in the TRI. Those working for healthy communities need to find out, and share, the industrial releases that may be impacting their communities. One can ascertain industrial toxic releases not listed on TRI by searching your state’s databases for air or other discharge permits granted in your area.

Paul Connett, PhD
Member of FAN 2016 Fundraising Team

See all FAN bulletins online

USA - Letter: Residents should speak out about fluoride

In November, six reputable organizations together with a group of citizens submitted a petition to the EPA concerning EPA authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). It includes 46 pages of citations documenting the neurotoxicity of fluoridation chemicals, including 61 human studies; 196 of the studies cited are just from the last decade, i.e since the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) wrote that “(fluoridation) has been reported to increase the accumulation of the neurotoxicant lead in the body.” The NRC politely dismissed the one 2000 study that denied the evidence of the lead-fluoride connection and instead called for more study. The TSCA petition provides a bibliography of that additional study specific to neurotoxicity. 
Twenty-first century science documents three ways how fluoridation causes permanent brain damage. First, fluoride is an enzyme poison that bioaccumulates in bodies, bones and brains. Second, fluoride depresses thyroid hormones, which when depressed during critical periods of brain development result in learning disabilities. Finally, fluoride is corrosive and a catalyst that has an attraction for heavy metals. In other words, fluoridation accelerates the destruction of plumbing, pulling the metals into our water as well as enhancing the absorption of those metals into our blood and tissue.
No one likes to admit they’ve been wrong and inadvertently done harm -- not dentists, water departments or any organization. But anyone who allows their points of view to become ossified in a 1950s time warp in the face of modern evidence of harm is displaying confirmation bias, not scientific behavior. They are playing political CYA. They are lying to themselves and to the public.
In 2009, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group (EWG) wrote a report with a pithy title, “Chloramine + Lead Pipes + Fluoride = Contaminated Tap Water.” Any disinfectant synergistically increases the damage caused by fluoride, although chloramine is the worst of them. Gloucester has been using chloramine since about 2010. Obviously, we need to disinfect our water, but there are better ways than using chloramine. Erin Brockovich has objected to both fluoride and chloramine as chemical water additives, documenting the harmful effects of each.
Nobel Prize nominee Lois Gibbs who blew the whistle on the contamination at Love Canal several decades ago and subsequently founded the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, issued a public statement in 2015 stating that fluoridation harms health and environment. Civil rights leader Andrew Young wrote his second letter opposing fluoridation as a human rights violation in 2016. Also in 2016, National Institute of Health adviser, author and medical scholar Dr. Mark Hyman wrote, “There are numerous mechanisms by which uncontrolled dosing of fluorides through water fluoridation can potentially harm thyroid function, the body and the brain.” All three have called for an immediate cessation of fluoridation and political investigation into the suppression of the science documenting harm.
Just for five minutes, accept all this evidence from expert researchers published in credible peer-reviewed journals and the learned opinions that fluoridation is harmful to brains and bodies. Now ask yourself, what does it mean if you instead gamble on the dogmatic opinions of those with vested interests and are wrong?
This isn’t as politically muddy as we think. I’m asking Cape Anners to tell city, state and national leadership that we don’t want to gamble with our families health and that as a first step toward reducing the lead levels in our water, we demand a cessation to fluoridation. Despite what anyone says, we have the political power and constitutional right to take immediate action that protects our families from poison in our water.
Karen Favazza Spencer

Why do they need a society to promote fluoride. - at least no one pays me to counter their propaganda

New Fluoridation Society Provides Help to Fight Myths

Johnny Johnson Jr., DMD, president of the newly formed American Fluoridation Society (AFS) got into the fluoridation fight when local officials in his community of Pinellas County, FL, voted in 2011 to discontinue water fluoridation, citing concern that residents might be ingesting too much fluoride . . .

“I thought she was kidding, but she was serious,” he recounted. “I explained there’s been no literature that found any connection whatsoever between water fluoridation and cancer, and I sent her information. She was blown away by the research and said she had definitely been misled.”

In another incident, a public health student told him there was “lots of debate about toxins and arsenic in fluoride.” Dr. Johnson replied: “There’s no debate; the science is crystal clear.”

. . . The main thing that healthcare professionals can do is be aware of what’s going on in their communities regarding water fluoridation, Dr. Johnson advised. Letters to newspapers and noticing what people are saying about the issue are tip-off’s about efforts against community water fluoridation.

Myths? Who is he kidding.!

Illuminati Fluoride Chemical Warfare & Mind Control

Old one but you may not have seen it..Some of it is not proven, Nazi involvement etc but........the shut up bit is amazing.
The water legislation is different to what is stated  now the council have to ask PHE to start the consultation for fluoridation as in Hull at the moment

Friday, December 30, 2016

Michael Connett, Fluoride & The Brain (full video)

Thursday, December 29, 2016


This chart is based upon the data collected in the largest dental survey carried out in the US (NIDR, 1986-87). The study examined tooth decay and dental fluorosis among 39,000 children in 84 communities. The blue bars show that as community fluoride water levels went up so does the prevalence of dental fluorosis. This is a STRONG relationship. In contrast, as the community fluoride water levels go up there is very little - if any - significant difference in tooth decay (striped pink bars). This is a VERY WEAK relationship.

What kind of risk would you impose on the developing brains of babies and young children to achieve this questionable benefit?

See the petition to the USA EPA to ban fluoridation under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA).

IS Fluoride BAD? Dangers of FLUORIDE


10 oranges today to equal one in the past?

Brita UK filters do not increase aluminium content

The UK filters don’t increase aluminium.

The filters are designed to improve the taste and appearance of tap water and doesn’t add anything.

The filter material of the MAXTRA filter cartridge contains a mixture of ion exchange resins and activated carbon that has been tested to food grade quality.
The ion exchange resin used reduces the carbonate hardness (limescale) and reduces metals, such as copper and lead, that can occur as a result of domestic installation.

The activated carbon removes substances that may impair taste, such as chlorine and chlorine compounds.

Chlorine is added to the water as a disinfectant and impurities like lead and copper are often present. There is also naturally occurring hardness in tap water, which can create fur in your kettle and an oily scum on hot drinks. All of these are greatly reduced by using a BRITA filter system.

Kind regards

Sandra Preece
Customer Service Manager

BRITA Consumer

New research indicates fluoride may pose a risk

The U.S. National Institutes of Health recently announced funding to York University (Toronto) researcher Christine Till to further investigate the effects of fluoride exposure to the brain and nervous system. In 2014, Till along with Ashley Malin, published a study linking higher rates of ADHD to fluoridated areas of the U.S.
The promoters of fluoridation assure us that fluoridation is "safe and effective" at present exposure levels, but the Canadian Dental Association noted in 2012 that dental fluorosis, a condition resulting from high cumulative fluoride ingestion from all sources during childhood, is still increasing in Canada. That acknowledgement, along with the presence of dental fluorosis in many people raised in non-fluoridated communities, should be sufficient evidence to suspend the fluoridation of tap water in Canada until we have more information about the effects to other parts of the body than the teeth.
To those who continue to promote fluoridation, I ask: "What primary research can you cite which would allow us to ignore the current 300 animal and human studies, including 50 related to IQ, that link fluoride to negative neurological effects? I am not looking for endorsements or reviews- those are subject to bias.
I would like to see valid research that looked for harm but didn't find any. In 1999, the U.S. CDC acknowledged that "fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children." Why are we taking any chance in exposing the whole body to fluoridated water, without knowing how much water each person drinks, or how much fluoride they are already getting from other sources, especially when topical applications like toothpastes and rinses are simple and cheap for those who want them?
David Green, Wallis Dr

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

From Brita

Thank you for your email regarding Aluminium and Brita filters.

The report you mention is an American one, which bases its findings on various filters which are predominantly American.

The brand "Brita" refers here to a product produced and distributed by Clorox, a US conglomerate that bought and owns the trademark rights of "Brita" in the Americas. Products manufactured by BRITA GmbH, headquartered in Taunusstein/Germany,  are sold under the brand MAVEA in the US and Canada.

Aluminium can be present in tap water in different forms, either as a cation or as a complex anion.  The form the aluminium takes depends on other substances in the water and factors such as the pH of the water.  The BRITA MAXTRA water filter cartridge can remove aluminium in the cation form and depending on the concentration, can reduce it by up to 60%.  Aluminium in the anionic form is not removed by the BRITA filter medium. As tap water varies considerably from region to region and time to time it is not possible to give an accurate reduction rate for overall aluminium in tap water.  Even with specific information on all the substances present in an incoming water, it is not possible to be sure of the exact construction of aluminium complexes in tap water and the according reduction rates caused by the BRITA filter.

I hope this answers any concerns you may have and that you will continue to use BRITA Filter Cartridges.

If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate in contacting BRITACare again.

Kind regards


They do not answer my query I sent simply - can it increase the aluminium content

I'm concerned about using Brita filters after reading the following (below) as I see your filters increase aluminium content instead of decreasing it. 

Aluminium DOES cause Alzheimer's:
Expert says new findings confirm the metal plays a role in the devastating brain disease Chris Exley is a professor in bioinorganic chemistry based at Keele University A link between between aluminium and Alzheimer’s has existed for many years But a lack of evidence has caused the scientific community to remain unsure However, his new research confirms the metal plays a role in cognitive decline A link between aluminium and Alzheimer's disease has long existed. But many scientists says there is not enough evidence to blame the metal, used by thousands for everyday purposes to cook and store food. However, Professor Chris Exley, from Keele University, says his latest research confirms it does indeed play a role in cognitive decline. Here, in a piece for medical-blogging website The Hippocratic Pos" .....

F.A.N. bulletin

More Researchers Acknowledge Fluoridation’s
Lack of Effectiveness Data
“Fluoridated water [does] not seem, based on the existing literature, to hold sufficient evidence for the reduction of dental caries,” report Italian researchers in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry (December 2016), reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)
Sicca, et al. analyzed thirty systematic reviews on tooth decay prevention, from 2002 – 2015, and report “there is not sufficient evidence to determine whether the use [of] water fluoridation has a significant impact in the reduction of caries." Other scientists concur. Swedish researchers, in PLOS one, February 2015, reported a “systematic review concerned the caries-preventive effect of water fluoridation [MdDonagh]… was graded as low.”
In July 2012, Cagetti, et al. reported “Studies of the effectiveness of water fluoridation have been based on observational study designs… these studies are regarded as low in quality and the weight of the evidence derived from cross-sectional and observational studies can be questionable”
Fluoridation’s foundation is based on human experimental studies which began in 1945.  Errors and omissions in those studies were pointed out, but ignored, as early as 1959 by dental researcher Phillip Sutton and others.
In 2011 the West Virginia University Rural Health Research Center reported "...it was found that fluoridation rates were not significantly related to the measures of either caries or overall condition of the teeth for urban or rural areas."
In 2015,  the independent and trusted UK-based Cochrane group of researchers could not find any quality evidence that proves fluoridation changes the “existing differences in tooth decay across socioeconomic groups.” or that fluoridation cessation increases decay rates.
NYSCOF President, attorney Paul Beeber says, “Fluoridation is one the biggest public health blunders of modern times, a political boondoggle, not supported by science. It must stop.”
In 2009, attempting to prove that fluorosed teeth are less decayed, Kumar reveals 1986-1987 National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) data which, upon analysis, shows similar cavity rates in permanent teeth whether the water is fluoridated or not (Table 1).  Chart depicts data.
  • More ineffectiveness evidence here.
A December 2016 Health Affairs article claims fluoridation may save money but it’s based on “an assumption of Community Water Fluoridation Programs effectiveness in reducing caries,” the researchers write. It’s not proof of effectiveness as some have claimed.

See all FAN bulletins online

WTVM.com-Columbus, GA News Weather & Sports

15 How Fluoride in Water Actually Destroys Teeth & Bones Dr Daniel Nuzum

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

Very old one but worth seeing again

How to detox from sugar and feel so much better

Processed sugar is easily digested and therefore goes straight into your bloodstream, which causes your blood glucose levels to shoot sky high.

Processed sugar is easily digested and therefore goes straight into your bloodstream, which causes your blood glucose levels to shoot sky high. | THINKSTOCK.COMThe average American consumes about 152 pounds of sugar a year, that’s about 22 teaspoons every day.

But sugar isn’t just about the bag of white sugar you see in the food stores – white flour and whole wheat flour is even worse than sugar because it raises our blood sugar even more than table sugar, according to author, Mark Hyman, M.D. (Instead, reach for almond flour and hazelnut flour, which are full of protein and healthy fats to stabilize your blood sugar and not lead to inflammation).

Hyman mentions that sugar is eight times as addictive as cocaine. No wonder so many of us can’t let go of the sugary foods, especially this time of the year.

Any type of sugar is converted quickly into glucose by the body and used for fuel, but how healthy that fuel is depends on where the sugar comes from. Natural sugars, such as those found in fruits, are typically accompanied by other nutrients like fiber and antioxidants, making them healthy foods overall.

Refined sugar, such as those found in store-bought cookies, breads, bagels, cakes, and more, on the other hand, are processed through bleaching, extreme heat, chemicals and more, and are stripped of any other nutrients or fibers, resulting in a nutrient-devoid food. Even most brown sugars are just molasses or refined sugar with added artificial colors. Don’t be fooled by the claims on the packaging.

Processed sugar is easily digested and therefore goes straight into your bloodstream, which causes your blood glucose levels to shoot sky high. This puts an awful strain on your organs, causing wear, tear and aging. And makes you feel awful – I’m sure many of you have been in this situation after eating white bread or a bagel or a cookie when you start to crave more sugar and sweets for energy.


High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is even worse. Found in everything from soup to cookies to cereals to sodas, it’s made from corn syrup that is scientifically altered to contain a higher percentage of fructose than glucose. HFCS makes foods taste sweeter, which means manufacturers can use less to get the same sweet taste, thereby saving money. Unfortunately, they’re finding through research that the body doesn’t process fructose the same as it does glucose, and that HFCS may be more connected to weight gain and even pancreatic cancer than regular sugar.

Hidden names for sugar

Be on the lookout for these names of hidden sugar in your packaged products:

barley malt * caramel * date sugar * Barbados sugar * beet sugar * castor sugar * brown sugar * buttered syrup * cane sugar * dextran * fructose * ethyl maltol * agave nectar * glucose * golden sugar * HFCS * fruit juice * grape sugar * fruit juice concentrate * corn syrup solids * cane juice * corn syrup * confectioner’s sugar * dehydrated cane juice * galactose * icing sugar * panocha * maltodextrin * diastatic malt * golden syrup * maltose * lactose * raw sugar * maple syrup * rice syrup * refiner’s syrup * granulated sugar * turbinado sugar * yellow sugar * sorbitol * treacle * Florida crystals * sorghum syrup * mannitol * sucrose * syrup * malt sugar * rice syrup * raw sugar * molasses * maltose * mat syrup * invert sugar * corn sweetener * crystalline fructose * dextrose * evaporated cane juice


Even what many people think of as a “health” food, like low-fat yogurt and tomato sauce, is often filled with added refined sugars that make it a lot less healthy. In fact, we can consume a lot of sugar without even knowing it. These days, sugar is in our sweets and treats, our yogurt and salsa, but also in our salad dressing, bread, cereal, condiments, soup, and more. Read your labels. My best advice: stop eating the fat-free, low-fat foods because they are full of sugar.

So, how do you know if a product has added sugar in it or not? It’s easier than you think.

Don’t focus on the grams of sugar on the nutrition facts because those sugars could be coming from tomatoes and carrots and onions (on the ingredient list of a clean tomato sauce), however if you see any of the above words for hidden sugar on the ingredient list of your tomato sauce or another product such as almond milk, then you know it has added sugars inside.

Here are a few ways to get started:

•Read labels — Especially on condiments, beverages and any processed food. There is sugar lurking in the ingredient list in everything from tomato sauce to salsa. Refined sugar is highly inflammatory and is often the cause and trigger of many health issues.

•Drink filtered water — Get yourself a high quality water filter that removes fluoride, chemicals and heavy metals from tap water. Surprisingly, drinking these chemicals and metals interferes with our gut health, which as you know is where the majority of our immune system lives.

•Eat detoxifying veggies — Add in more detoxifying whole foods such as broccoli, cauliflower, dandelion, arugula and Brussels sprouts. These foods can help support your liver to remove excess toxins that we’re exposed to on a daily basis.


That’s when it’s time to put the sugar-laden product back on the shelf and reach for a product that doesn’t have refined sugar on the ingredient list – even if the grams of sugar on the nutrition label of this product are higher than other products, it’s okay because those sugars would have come from fruits and veggies. See how sneaky the labels and grams of sugar can be?

I’m sure you’re wondering, “What can you use this holiday season to get that sweet taste?”

The best alternatives to refined sugar are whole, natural sweeteners such as unrefined organic honey and organic pure maple syrup.

Pure maple syrup is especially good because it is brimming with essential vitamins, minerals, trace elements and other nutrients drawn from deep within the earth by maple trees.

So, before you head out to the store to purchase fat-free yogurt (full of added sugar), a jar of processed tomato sauce (full of added sugar) and your favorite salad dressing (probably full of added sugar), take the above list of hidden names for sugar with you and make sure they don’t appear on the ingredient list. That’s how you can ensure you are eating a food that’s not full of inflammatory refined sugars!


This week, start by removing the hidden refined sugars from your pantry and replace them with cleaner options such as organic honey and pure maple syrup. You can easily use these two products in all of your desserts for the holidays and for healthier alternatives to comfort foods.

While you’re at it, remove the alternative sweeteners, which trick you into thinking your food and beverages are sweeter than sugar!

These often lead to more sugar and sweet cravings. It’s tough to get off of them (trust me, I detoxed sugar and sugar alternatives from my life in my 20s, and it was awful and I had terrible withdrawal symptoms), but after a week of detoxing these sugars and chemical sweeteners, you’ll feel less bloated and your digestion will be much smoother, as well.

•Remove refined oils — Refined oils such as canola oil are highly inflammatory. You can replace them with healthier oils such as extra-virgin organic olive oil, avocado oil and coconut oil.

•Eat more healthy fats — Don’t fear fat! Fat is not the enemy unlike what we’ve all been brought up to believe. Our bodies need healthy fats to survive and function optimally. These fats keep you from being hungry, speed up your metabolism and help your body lose weight. Toss the margarine and instead reach for avocados, walnuts, hemp seeds, flaxseeds, chia seeds, almonds, wild salmon, grass-fed meat, omega 3 organic eggs and the healthy oils mentioned above.

AMIE VALPONE, Contributor/USA TODAY Network

Amie Valpone is a celebrity chef, culinary nutritionist and motivational speaker specializing in clean eating recipes free of gluten, dairy, soy and refined sugar. Amie Valpone excerpted a portion of this article from her cookbook, “Eating Clean: The 21-Day Plan to Detox, Fight Inflammation, and Reset Your Body,” © 2016 by Amie Valpone.

Cats teeth and why cleaning your cats’ teeth is so important

Pets get gum disease in the same way that humans do, with bacteria and trapped food particles collecting along the gum line and forming plaque. If this is plaque is not removed (and yes, only mechanical abrasion works here so regular teeth cleaning is key), minerals in the saliva then combine with the plaque and form tartar (or calculus), which is firmly attached to the tooth.
This tartar then causes local irritation resulting in gum inflammation (gingivitis). Unfortunately prior to gingivitis, the owner will see absolutely nothing. If the calculus is not then removed (and the only way to do this is to give a general anaesthetic to your pet), then the calculus begins to actually separate the gum from the teeth, allowing even more bacteria to enter! This is called periodontal disease.....
Luckily periodontal disease is preventable (as in humans) and ideally involves daily brushing (or at least twice weekly) using a specific dog/cat toothbrush and toothpaste (available in chicken, seafood or even malt flavours). Do not ever use human toothpaste as this contains fluoride which is toxic to pets....

John Moore on the dangers of Sodium Fluoride - This is found in your toothpaste!

Monday, December 26, 2016

NZ - Fluoride choice

The Dominion Post26 Dec 2016
National’s introduction of a bill requiring mandatory fluoridation of our water supplies is very disappointing. Currently, each council can decide what to do regarding this issue, and local citizens are able to have a discussion with those councillors.
Under National’s bill – now opened for submissions – the decision is left to the country’s district health boards (DHBs).
The only problem is the DHBs follow the party line prescribed by the Ministry of Health.
National’s bill is an attack on democracy. Regardless of one’s views on this subject, true democracy would allow each region to make its own choice.
National’s legislation does not allow any debate or conversation, or provide any funding to implement the legislation which will put pressure on local body rates.
NZ First should be commended for being the only party to oppose this legislation.

Sunday, December 25, 2016

USA - Yorktown Receives Grant to Study Town-Operated Fluoride System

December 25, 2016 at 12:00 AM
YORKTOWN, N.Y. - A $19,444 grant was awarded to Yorktown by the state Department of Health to see whether it is feasible to build a town-operated fluoride system for water supplied by the Catskill Aqueduct. Currently, the Amawalk Water Treatment Plant fluoridates its water on-site. That facility supplies water to eastern Yorktown and Somers. Residents on the west side of Yorktown and Cortlandt receive their water from the Catskill Aqueduct. The Catskill supply at one time had a fluoride feed system that was taken off-line in 2013 because it needed repair.
Because other municipalities that belong to the Northern Westchester Joint Water Works (NWJWW) do not want their water fluoridated and receive water from the same supply, a separate feed system would have to be built further down the supply line for Yorktown to fluoridate its water. Town engineer Michael Quinn said the study would likely be conducted in January and that he believes the project is feasible.
“Our water personnel are very well-versed in using, testing and overseeing a system operation, so for us to oversee and maintain a fluoride addition is well within our capability,” Quinn said. “We won’t need to get new staff, we won’t need new training; we already have the in-house expertise to do it.” The study, Quinn said, will include a cost estimate for the work. If the town board moves forward, he said, it would apply for additional funding.
Matthew Geho, operations director at NWJWW, said the residents of the other towns do not want fluoride in their water. He predicts more municipalities will end to fluoridation and that it has become a point of contention in recent years. Many people feel that fluoride is abundant outside the water supply, he said.

Alaska - Anti-fluoride ballot initiatives get support from Anchorage legislators

An Anchorage ballot initiative effort aimed at removing fluoride from city water has two rather unusual political bedfellows supporting it: the Democratic incoming majority leader of the Alaska House and a conservative perennial local candidate who has never held public office.

Rep. Chris Tuck is listed as a co-sponsor of the initiative, which is gathering signatures to be placed on the April city ballot. The primary sponsor is Dustin Darden, a carpenter who, in runs for mayor and legislator, has used homemade wooden signs usually bearing anti-fluoride messages.

Newly elected independent Rep. Jason Grenn also signed the petition. But Grenn said he only signed it because he believes in direct democracy. He said he doesn't actually support removing fluoride from city water and trusts government assurances that it isn't harmful.

In Anchorage, bitter fights over fluoride have cropped up occasionally since the city started fluoridating its water in 1953. Before the possible battle shaping up for 2017, the most recent fight was in 2013, when the Anchorage Assembly re-authorized fluoridation. A ballot initiative has never made it past the signature-gathering phase.

Opponents call fluoride toxic and say it's forced medication; supporters say it's a safe, effective and cheap way to combat tooth decay. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, American Dental Association, Centers for Disease Control and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services all support the use of fluoride in public drinking water to help reduce cavities.

[Anchorage taxi permit owners seek to repeal new taxi law by referendum]

Anchorage water treatment officials say the city uses less than the federal recommendation: 0.7 milligrams per liter, or the equivalent of half an aspirin dissolved in a bathtub of water.

Other Alaska communities, including Fairbanks, Juneau and Palmer, have stopped fluoridating city water in the past decade, in part because the tooth-protecting chemical is widely added to toothpaste and fluoride rinses. Saturday, Dec. 24, is the 20th anniversary of the death of the chemist, Joseph Muhler, credited with first introducing fluoride into toothpaste — Procter and Gamble's Crest in 1955.

Tuck said he's been a longtime opponent of water fluoridation and believes it has adverse health effects. He has a reverse-osmosis system in his home to remove fluoride from the public drinking supply and also uses bottled water, he said. For many years, he said, he got water from the pipe sticking out of the cliff on Turnagain Arm, near Beluga Point.

David Logan, a retired Juneau dentist who serves as executive director of the Alaska Dental Society, said community water fluoridation has been shown to be safe, cheap and effective way to improve oral health."I would rather it be a choice, rather than something that's automatically added into the water supply," Tuck said.

"We're for public health and we deal in facts, not in conjectures, and not in emotions," Logan said. "For us, it's a very clear-cut issue."

A second ballot initiative, also co-sponsored by Darden and Tuck, would require the manufacturer of the fluoride used by the city to provide the public with "an accurate list of contaminants and their amounts for each batch." The initiative also seeks a detailed toxicology report and a "written verification of the chemical's safety for ingestion by all water customers."

USA - EPA Urged to Ban Brain Toxin

By Dr. Mercola
Fluoride Action Network (FAN) is among a coalition of environmental, medical and health groups urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban the addition of fluoride to public drinking water supplies.
The EPA has been served with a petition that includes more than 2,500 pages of scientific documentation detailing the risks of water fluoridation to human health.
In particular, the petition notes, "the amount of fluoride now regularly consumed by millions of Americans in fluoridated areas exceeds the doses repeatedly linked to IQ loss and other neurotoxic effects."
The EPA is authorized, under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to prohibit the use of a chemical that poses an unreasonable risk to the general public or particularly vulnerable populations................

Saturday, December 24, 2016


And we also received this short note and photo from Cynthia Bagchi from Bedford, UK.  

Cynthia's message

I am so very pleased, as you can see, that these two boys and their many friends have not had to drink or bathe in fluoridated water as my own children were when they were young, before I became wiser.  I can see the difference.  I am just so grateful to you and your team for leading the fluoride free campaign and for giving us all the many  'tools'  and support , raising the 'f' profile  so that  locally we had more courage and conviction to keep going - for there were  times when  it nearly did all seem just too much.  These two grandchildren of ours that you see in the photo (the eldest one had just been born - two weeks- in 2010 on your first visite to Bedford and was there for most of your talk at the EntShed); these two boys, now 6 years and 4 years  have often helped with delivering flyers  and as you see were there to help when we had our Big Bedford Town event in 2015.    I just love this picture - of course I would.  We still are not quite free from this 'poison' as we wait, and agitate,  for the 'contract to fluoridate' to be official terminated.
We are very, very close to one of our mini-goals for Christmas Eve.
We had a terrific day yesterday: as of 8 am this morning we had received $94,953 from 360 supporters. If we receive another 40 donations today we receive a pledge of $3,000 for reaching 400 donors. With all pledges being doubled until we reach $97,000 that could bring us to our mini-goal of $100,000 by midnight Christmas Eve.

Alabama city can remove fluoride from drinking water, court rules

arab water logo.png
A Marshall County water system, at least for now, can stop fluoridating its water over concerns that the long-held practice isn't healthy, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The city of Arab's water system in August 2015 stopped fluoridating its water after reviewing studies that the practice was unhealthy. But a few months later the Arab City Council ordered the system to restart fluoridation.
A Marshall County judge sided with the city after hearing testimony from medical experts and issued a preliminary injunction in the case ordering the water system to re-start fluoridation. The water works appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court.
The water board argued that despite the city council's 1972 resolution to start fluoridation and its 2015 resolution telling the waterworks to continue fluoridation, the water system still has the authority to make operational decisions.
The Alabama Supreme Court sided with the water works board in its Friday opinion. The court reversed the circuit judge's order that had granted the city council an injunction requiring the water system to fluoridate the water.
"The board is correct. It is undisputed that the board has authority over the waterworks system," according to the Alabama Supreme Court opinion.
In its opinion reversing the injunction, the Alabama Supreme Court stated Arab did not have a reasonable chance of success on the ultimate merits of its case.
Many water systems began putting fluoride in their water about 70 years ago after studies showed it helped prevent tooth decay in children and adults, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
Not all water systems added fluoride and some have stopped in recent years over health concerns. The CDC maintains a My Water's Fluoride website to let people learn about their community's drinking water fluoridation levels.
Birmingham's water works system fluoridates its water. To check if your system fluoridates its water go to the CDC's website: My Water's Flouride
On Sept. 19, 1972, the city of Arab adopted a resolution ordering its water works board to begin fluoridating the water.
"On Aug. 1, 2015, the (water) board, citing studies indicating negative health consequences resulting from fluoride, stopped fluoridating the water it supplies to the city," according to the Supreme Court opinion. The city disagreed and on Nov. 2, 2015, the council, citing studies indicating negative health consequences if the water wasn't fluoridated, passed a resolution ordering the water works board "to immediately restart the addition of fluoride into the water supply system of the municipality," according to the opinion.
On Nov. 10, 2015, the board wrote a letter to the city stating that it did not intend to comply. On Feb. 17 the city filed a lawsuit against the water board and asked the circuit court to enter an injunction requiring the water system to fluoridate the water it supplies to the city.
On March 17, 2016, the circuit court granted the City's request for a preliminary injunction after holding a hearing in which medical professionals, including the Director of the Alabama Department of Public Health testified.
The judge stated that "all medical professionals in attendance were qualified as experts in their fields and each offered the opinion that systemic fluoride is important for the public health, and that removal of fluoride from the water supply would cause immediate, irreversible, irreparable harm -- especially to children who need systemic fluoride as their teeth develop, elderly, and poor citizens served by the (water board)."
The judge stated that the only evidence before him was that the water board "fluoridated the water for 43 years without any complaint or claim of hardship. And while the [board] has presented no evidence of hardship, the city has shown through the testimony presented that immediate and irreparable harm will indeed occur if fluoride is not reintroduced into the city's water system."
The water board appealed the injunction and the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the circuit judge's decision.

USA - Fluoride in Drinking Water Comes From Here

The resistance against water fluoridation might be a different story if the naturally occurring element of fluoride was added to our water. 

Fluoride is found in all natural waters, levels can be very high in groundwater, depending on a number of factors, such as the types of rocks and minerals of that region. Drinking water is the largest fluoridesource.

Our tap water, on the other hand, is littered with hydrofluorosilicic Acid, a toxic industrial waste by-product that governments have been adding to our drinking water for over sixty years.

Again, we’re not talking about the natural element of fluoride here, we are talking about industrial toxic waste...............

Friday, December 23, 2016

My note to Brita water filters

I've sent the following email to Brita it will be interesting to see what they say.

"I'm concerned about using Brita filters after reading the following (below) as I see your filters increase aluminium content instead of decreasing it.

 Aluminium DOES cause Alzheimer's:
Expert says new findings confirm the metal plays a role in the devastating brain disease Chris Exley is a professor in bioinorganic chemistry based at Keele University A link between between aluminium and Alzheimer’s has existed for many years But a lack of evidence has caused the scientific community to remain unsure However, his new research confirms the metal plays a role in cognitive decline A link between aluminium and Alzheimer's disease has long existed. But many scientists says there is not enough evidence to blame the metal, used by thousands for everyday purposes to cook and store food. However, Professor Chris Exley, from Keele University, says his latest research confirms it does indeed play a role in cognitive decline. Here, in a piece for medical-blogging website The Hippocratic Pos" .....


We are setting our sights in 2017 on ending fluoridation in the U.S.--the country where fluoridation began. However, hundreds, if not thousands, of communities around the fluoridating world (particularly, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, the UK) continue to battle this foolish practice at the local level.  As many of you know it is not easy and it takes a great deal of persistence and organizing ability to succeed. It also takes thoughtful and courageous leaders to withstand the ridicule and abuse they receive from ill-informed dental lobbyists and equally ill-informed public health officials and the journalists who defer to them. 

In this bulletin - researched and written by our campaign manager Stuart Cooper - we celebrate some of our victories and hear some of the wisdom of the victorious. But first we look at our fundraising campaign for 2017 to make sure we keep these local victories coming.  Simply put both the science and common decency says that it is reckless to expose babies and young children to a known brain-damaging chemical, for which the evidence is now overwhelming (see the EPA petition).

Fluoride-Free Victories in 2016

More than 450 communities throughout the world have ended existing fluoridation programs or rejected new efforts to fluoridate either by council vote or citizen referendum since 1990.  In 2016 alone, we’ve confirmed that at least  26 communities with more than 845,000 residents voted to end fluoridation, bringing the number of victories since 2010 to at least 219 communities, representing approximately 6.5 million people. Most of these victories were the result of citizens organizing local campaigns and voicing their opposition to public officials, with many working in coordination with FAN or using our materials to educate their neighbors and local decision-makers about the serious health risks associated with the practice.  Some of 2016’s victories included:
  • Kennebunk, Kennebunkport and Wells Water District, Maine  (30,000)     
  • Mackay Regional Council, Australia    (124,724)
  • Bedford, England, U.K  (166,252)
  • Gladstone Regional Council, Queensland, Australia  (73,335)          
  • Wakefield, England, U.K.  (77,500)               
  • Cornwall, Ontario, Canada  (46,340)             
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico  (157,428)          
  • Newport, Oregon  (10,120)                                       
  • Guilford Township, Pennsylvania  (26,000) 
  • Whakatane, New Zealand  (37,000)  
National Fluoridation Stats Show Tipping Point Has Been Reached
Center For Disease Control (CDC) fluoridation statistics for the U.S. have been released for 2014, and they show exactly why the fluoridation-lobby has been pouring more money and resources into promoting the practice and fighting our efforts: WE ARE WINNING!

For the first time in nearly 40 years the percentage of the U.S. population served by community water systems receiving fluoridated water decreased, from 74.6% to 74.4%.  The percentage of the U.S. population receiving optimally fluoridated water (natural and artificial) also decreased, from 67.1% to 66.3%. 
Also decreasing:
  • The number of water systems providing fluoridated water (natural or artificial);
  • The number of water systems adding fluoride, and
  • The number of water systems providing naturally “optimal fluoride” levels.
Why Government Officials Opposed Fluoridation in 2016

“Ten people have emailed me to tell me they want fluoride, as opposed to the hundreds who have told me they don’t want it.  I’ve listened and reviewed the material sent to me…therefore, what I have been doing is listening to the people. Overwhelmingly the people have said they don’t want fluoride in their water. Whatever their reason doesn’t really matter. They are telling me to support them.” 

“Councils are not engaged in public health. Local Government doesn’t carry that expertise. The senior levels of Government are being quite mischievous here. This has become a pattern over the past couple of years. This council has never voted against fluoride. This council has voted against the method of delivery.  Why not have a form of delivery that you can go buy that service. This is not a sledgehammer to just whack everybody over the head with.”

“We are making this change because the authority recognizes there are conflicting opinions about the benefits of water fluoridation...We believe we should not put anything into the water that is not required by regulation to maintain the potability and pH balance of your water.”

“The pipe at the “T” by the air stripper has had to be replaced in the area where fluoride is pumped into the water supply due to corrosion. It has been replaced for the 3rd time since installing the air stripper in 2012 at a cost of $850 for the replacement parts.”

“I have read the reports’ pros and cons.  I have seen firsthand what the fluorosilicic acid  does to pipes, the concrete. It was a hard decision, but I thought, weighing both sides, that it’s better not to add something that could be destructive — we’re told in small amounts it’s not destructive — but I just thought it’s better to err on the side of safety.”

“Tooth decay is not a result of lack of fluoride but a result of too much sugar. And the DHBs, Dave [Macpherson and] Martin [Gallagher] should start addressing that issue.”

“After considering the overall annual operational and maintenance expenses, including testing, the committee decided it was not worth the expense to continue infusing fluoride into the village’s water system for such a small added value.  There are 1,000 milligrams per liter of fluoride in most tooth paste (about 2,000 times more than is available from treated water), as well as many other avenues, such as mouth washes and dental application.”

Here are more quotes from elected officials on why they oppose fluoridation.
Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network

See all FAN bulletins online


December 22, 2016
Dwayne Page
As it nears the launch date of its new water treatment plant, the DeKalb Utility District Board of Commissioners has decided against fluoridation of its water supply to customers.
DUD Manager Jon Foutch told WJLE Wednesday that the recent decision by the board was unanimous but that before any action was taken, notices, as required by law, were sent to customers with their monthly bills. According to Foutch, only four customers have expressed an opinion and all were opposed to fluoridation of their water supply.
“Fluoride is a naturally occurring element found in most all waters in Tennessee. Surface water as in lakes or rivers has less amounts then ground water sources. Fluoride is in other sources such as toothpaste, mouthwash and fluoride treatments from the dentist. Some dietary supplements and packaged foods also have fluoride added. Any product made with water, soft drinks, tea, coffee, or sprayed with water, such as fruits or vegetables, also has fluoride if their water source is fluoridated,” he said
“Fluoride, while regulated by the state, is not mandated as it serves no purpose in the treatment of water. It does not aid in the clarifying or disinfection of the water. It is purely an additive to the water that helps in the development of teeth in young children”.
“While tap water is perfectly safe to drink, more and more people are drinking bottled water which does not contain fluoride”.
“For many years, the normal dose of fluoride in treated water was 0.7 to 1.2 ppm (parts per million). That has been lowered to a recommended level of 0.7 ppm “to curb a rise in dental fluorosis in the United States” as stated in the article from the Journal of American Medicine," he said............

Fix Those Fluoride Stains Today!

Fix Those Fluoride Stains Today! Fluoridosis

Have you noticed white or brown splotches or streaks on your child’s teeth? If you’re alarmed and beginning to think it is a form of tooth decay, you’ll be pleased to learn it’s more likely a case of mild to moderate dental fluorosis. Fluorosis occurs when tooth enamel is exposed to too much fluoride early in its development, which may cause the staining you’re noticing. The question is, though, what can you do about it?

Understanding Fluorosis

Fluorosis comes in four “shades,” if you will: very mild, mild, moderate and severe. In the first two instances, the mottling of the tooth enamel is hardly perceptible, and usually shows up as a faded white streak or spot. In many cases, your dentist or hygienist will be the first to notice it because of all the attention they pay to your child’s teeth. The latter two, however, will certainly be noticeable to you because the discoloration will likely affect more than one tooth, and a larger surface area of enamel. Sometimes, the coloring can include the outlining of brown as well. With the “severe” shade, the predominant color is brown, and most certainly noticeable..............
Nice little earner for dentists no wonder some back fluoridation.

Fluoride Health Dangers in Drinking Water

fluoride-health-dangers-in-drinking-water.pngDid you know that the fluoride in drinking water can be dangerous to your health? Fluoride is commonly added to the water supplies of 60% of our cities to improve dental health. Some reports suggest that fluoride is directly linked to the increased rates of thyroid related disease. It doesn’t improve dental health instead it causes hypothyroidism, cancer and a host of other serious health problems.
Fluoride is a chemical element of the halogen group which also includes iodine and chlorine. It is commonly added to the water as a sodium fluoride to prevent cavities. It is also found in toothpaste, mouthwash and other dental products. In the early 1940s a group of researchers concluded that fluoride helps to fight tooth decay among children. Since then the use of fluoride in dental products became prevalent. Contrary to that, in recent research on fluoride effectiveness, a report from Dr John Yiamouyiannis concluded that fluoride is not effective at preventing tooth decay. Another research project in a different part of the world, in New Zealand, scientists concluded that teeth of children in non-fluoride water areas were slightly better than the children living in fluoride water areas! Despite these findings, as well as, growing health concerns among people almost 60 percent of the US cities still fluoridate their water supplies.
In the USA most recent and controversial debate is about “fluoride being added to water supply”, a contaminated water to improve dental health. According to one government agency, fluoridated water has been considered to be one of the top achievements so what is all this fuss about?
Well, since late 2008 certain US townships started a trend to stop supplying fluoridated water. Since then the debate has opened up again.  It is believed that excessive amount of fluoride in water can cause tooth fluorosis, weakness of bones and the cancer. There has been much discussion among government agencies to arrive at maximum limits and perhaps even agree on set amounts. This is a challenging task as to we can’t seem to agree on a specific amount. Public and government opinion are divided in this matter. There are some who are in favor of adding fluoride to water supply, and there are those who are against contaminating the water with fluoride.  It is a highly controversial subject in the USA, and some states are more inclined to leave the matter untouched.  Last month the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has launched an enquiry into the fluoride level in the water supply of Ohio City.
So what are a few of the facts regarding fluoride? According to the official toxicology handbook, Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, fluoride is more toxic and poisonous than lead and just a little less toxic and poisonous than arsenic. It is a poison which accumulates in our bodies and especially the bones as it is consumed over the years. We read in the Physician’s Desk Reference, “in hypersensitive persons, fluorides can occasionally result in skin eruptions such as urticaria, eczema, and atopic dermatitis. These hypersensitive reactions will normally go all way immediately after stopping the use of fluoride.” Mayo Clinic researchers reported in the 1990, March 22 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine that treating osteoporosis with fluoride increase the rate of hip fractures and also bone fragility.
Procter and Gamble performed a study which revealed that an amount of fluoride only half the amount used in public water supplies resulted in a significant and sizable increase in the occurrence of genetic damage. Epidemiology research performed in the middle of the 1970s by the now deceased Dr. Dean Burk, head of the cytochemistry department of the National Cancer Institute, showed that 10,000 or more cancer deaths linked to fluoridation occurred each year in the United States. Argonne National Laboratories confirmed in 1989 that fluoride has the ability to morph normal cells into cancer cells. In clinical studies performed by Battelle Research Institute in 1989 revealed that fluoride was causally linked to a rare type of liver cancer found in the mice, cancers and oral tumors in rats, and cancer of the bone in male rats. The New Jersey Department of Health has observed since 1991 that the occurrence of osteosarcoma, a form of bone cancer, was significantly elevated in young men who had been exposed to for dated water when compared to those who had not been exposed.
In addition to the thoroughly documented toxic effect dangers of fluoride, even very slight dosages of 1 ppm, which can be found in water which has been artificially fluoridated, can inhibit and impede enzyme systems, make arthritis worse, contribute to soft tissue calcification and produce fluorosis of the teeth in children.
You may be surprised to learn that the most recent studies have failed to provide any proof that water fluoridation helps to reduce the incidence of tooth decay.
Given this scientific data, we must ask what is the motive force behind this campaign for universal fluoridation. Before 1945, fluoride was accurately regarded as a pollutant to the environment. It brought about numerous lawsuits against industries, specifically the aluminum industry as well as the phosphate fertilizer industry, whose manufacturing waste products contain voluminous quantities of fluoride. The lawsuits resulted from the fact that these fluoride compounds killed farm animals and destroyed crops. These fluoride waste products were then classified as dangerous environmental pollutants and classified as toxic waste.
In part, to avoid having to pay the high cost of disposing of toxic wastes, manufacturers embarked on an intense and cleverly formulated public relations campaign. As a result of this, the status of fluoride was changed from a toxic environmental pollutant to an essential nutrient vital in ensuring healthy teeth. The science was a very bad, but the public relations campaign was the best money could buy.