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

UK Against Fluoridation

Friday, March 31, 2017

USA - Fluoride in Battlefield Water Could Be Removed

Video - click title

Whether to keep fluoride in city water is the issue facing resiFluoride in Battlefield Water Could Be Removeddents in Battlefield. It's a tale of two opinions when it comes to the effectiveness of the fluoride. 

BATTLEFIELD, Mo.--"The CDC has named it one of the best public health initiatives that we've ever had so yeah it's a good thing to do," says dentist Dr. Marlene Feisthamel.

Dr. Feisthamel is concerned about what removing fluoride from the city's water can mean for the health of teeth.

"It helps not only young people, kids because it gets incorporated into their tooth structure and you get a topical effect that's anti-cavity as well and it helps elderly people. As you age, you tend to get gum recession so it actually helps prevent cavities on the gum line in older people too," says Feisthamel.

Even though dentists say that fluoride in water helps prevent cavities, there are still some residents in Battlefield who want to see it removed.

"I've read online and heard bad things about fluoride being in the water. What I've read is it's not necessary with everybody going to the dentist so frequently and everything. It was just something they did a long time ago," says Battlefield resident David Shipley.

"It's safe at seven points per million, is absolutely safe. If you imagine one million pennies, and it's less than one penny that goes in the water so it's a very small amount," says Feisthamel.

So why is having fluoride in city water potentially on the chopping block? KOLR 10 News went to the public water supply district to find out and we were told no comment until they make a final decision in June, but some city officials believe it's all about the water district's bottom line including Dr. Feisthamel.

"The water district tells us it's about money. I don't know that's the case. We've found funding for the water district," says Feisthamel.

There will be a public meeting on June 20th where the issue whether to keep the fluoride in the drinking water will be discussed by the water district board followed by a final decision.

If the fluoride is such a small harmless amount why the millions thrown into the fight to make it compulsory?  If it is such a small amount either it has no affect or it does and why would it affect just teeth?

NZ - Call to Gov to Act on Precautionary Principle with Fluoride

Call to Government to Act on Precautionary Principle with Fluoride
“It was petrol in the 70s and 80s - what’s the equivalent today?” presenter Petra Bagust asked on TV3’s programme The Project, which covered this week’s news about lead exposure lowering IQ by more than 4 points.
“The answer is fluoride,” says Mary Byrne, National Coordinator for Fluoride Free NZ. “All of the discussion on The Project applies to fluoride in water.”
Using data from the Dunedin Longitudinal study, the authors concluded that children exposed to lead in the 1960s and 1970s have suffered 'long term ramifications' with lower cognitive function, lower socio-economic status at age 38 years and downward social mobility.
Leaded petrol was not banned in New Zealand until 1996, a twenty-six year delay from when researchers first raised the alarm bells.
Public Health Expert, Professor Nick Wilson, was interviewed on the programme and said, “When you are dealing with children’s intelligence, and you’re dealing with a neurotoxin, you really have to prioritise the well-being of children. You should take a precautionary approach so that even if all the evidence is not in, governments need to act.”
“It is astonishing," says Ms Byrne, "that Professor Wilson is ignoring the research showing fluoride’s harm to the brain, which is mounting virtually by the day. Using his own reasoning, he should be calling for the Precautionary Principle to be applied to fluoridation now.”
According to Professor Connett, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Toxicity, and director the USA-based Fluoride Action Network, “Fluoride is now in the same place as lead was in the 1970s.”
“In humans, 51 out of 58 IQ studies have shown an association between fluoride exposure and lowered IQ. This is a remarkable consistency when you consider that these studies have been conducted by different authors in different geographical areas in four different countries around the world over a period of 22 years. There is also a consistency between animal and human studies - over 30 animal studies show that fluoride reduces the ability to learn and memorise in maze tests.”
Next to the oil industry, the Ministry of Health was the main opponent to removing lead from petrol and were supported by the Royal Society of NZ. “The government has obviously not learnt its lesson and is now refusing to take a precautionary approach to fluoridation despite a growing body of health professionals and scientists calling for a halt to fluoridation,” says Ms Byrne.
A Harvard meta-analysis of the 27 human studies on fluoride and IQ, published in the prestigious Lancet Medical Journal, found that fluoride in water reduced IQ by an average of seven IQ points.
The US Government is currently undertaking studies to try to ascertain at what dose this harm occurs. In contrast, the NZ Government is considering a new fluoridation Bill to increase fluoride exposure.
Fluoridation chemicals also contain trace amounts of lead and other heavy metals also known to be neurotoxins. A number of studies in the past 18 years have found that fluoridation chemicals increase the uptake of lead.
"Surely, if ever there was a time for the Precautionary Principle to be responsibly applied it should be now. Fluoride has been known for a long time as the protected pollutant, but nowadays it should also be known as the protected neurotoxin.”

Canada- City pondering use of fluoride

Sarnia is still considering the possible removal of fluoride from its drinking water.
City council intends to ask voters a ballot question at next the municipal election about fluoridation, which is done at the water treatment plant to reduce tooth decay.
City Hall also plans to hold a public meeting before then and invite presentations from both a fluoride supporter, Dr. Sudit Ranade, Lambton’s medical officer of health, and an anti-fluoride advocate, Dr. Hardy Limeback, former president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research.
If city residents do vote in favour of removing fluoride it won’t end there, however,
Sarnia is one partner in the Lambton Area Water Supply System, and can be outvoted by other member municipalities.

Thursday, March 30, 2017

House of Lords

Dental Health: Children:Written question - HL6225

Asked by Lord Condon
Asked on: 21 March 2017
Department of Health
Dental Health: Children
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to prevent tooth decay in children under the age of five, in the light of the increase in tooth extractions in England in the last ten years.
Answered by: Lord O'Shaughnessy
Answered on: 29 March 2017
Improving the oral health of young children is a Public Health England (PHE) priority. PHE’s Child Oral Health Improvement Programme Board provides national system leadership for the delivery of the shared ambition that every child grows up free of tooth decay as part of getting the best start in life.
The two key actions to prevent tooth decay are reducing sugar consumption and getting fluoride onto teeth which can be by means of fluoride toothpaste, fluoride varnish and water fluoridation. PHE has published a number of toolkits to support local authorities in improving child oral health.
In addition the Government’s Childhood Obesity Plan, launched in August 2016, contained proposals for a broad, structured sugar reduction programme to remove sugar from the categories of food that contribute the most to children’s sugar intakes. The Government also announced the Soft Drinks Industry Levy last year, which will apply from April 2018.
To support families to reduce their sugar intake, PHE’s Change4Life launched the Be Food Smart campaign in January 2017 which encourages families to download the app which reveals the amount of sugar, saturated fat and salt in food and drink.

USA - Upcoming vote on fluoride in water draws big spending

DURANGO — An upcoming vote on whether water in a southwestern Colorado community should continue to be fluoridated is drawing big bucks from both sides of the campaign.

Durango voters will decide on April 4 whether to remove fluoride from the city's drinking water.
The Durango Herald reports that recent campaign filings show the pro-fluoride campaign has significantly outraised and outspend its rival committee.
The campaign to preserve fluoride in the water, Healthy Kids Healthy Durango, collected $22,465 in cash and in-kind donations through March 16. The campaign spent $8,769.
The group fighting against fluoride, Clean Water Durango, collected $1,045 in cash through March 16 from three people and spent $2,641 through March 16.
Most of the pro-fluoride funds came from Denver-based nonprofit Healthier Colorado.

USA - No more fluoride in the drinking water in Arab

Arab Water Works MeetingEffective Wednesday morning, Arab Water Works will no longer be adding fluoride to the drinking water.

This decision was actually made in 2015, but the city filed an injunction against Arab Water Works in November of 2015 which lead to a year long court battle. The Alabama Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arab Water Works this past December. At Tuesday nights meeting on whether they would do away with fluoride, at least one person in attendance isn't thrilled about the decision...................

NZ - Letter

Fluoride queries
Should we go with the flow about fluoride?
Government is poised to pass an act that will remove the existing right of local authorities to act on local opinion and valid science-based concerns regarding the addition of fluoride to drinking water.
Pro-fluoride lobbyists argue that a rational decision can only be achieved through centralised legislation but this is propaganda and/or ignorance. Many leading European countries do not add fluoride to water for very good reasons.
That fluoride is labelled as a dangerous poison just before dilution in drinking water is an irrefutable fact, so the onus is on the pro-lobbyists to prove their case, not the other way around. Fluoride was added to people's water for nefarious reasons long before dentists starting advocating it.
Our acceptance of fluoride is largely due to complacency through historical usage rather than scientific proof that it was ever good for us -- and, more importantly, it has never been proven to be safe in the same way that would be required if we were to use if for the first time today.
Pro-fluoride lobbyists lack the mountain of supporting health and safety information that is normally required in these situations. Instead, pro-fluoride lobbyists cherry-pick scientific studies, completely ignore other scientific studies and then have the temerity to claim that they have a monopoly on rational scientific argument and that local people are just too emotional to be rational about fluoride.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Oral Submissions to the NZ Health Committee March 2017 - Daniel Stablers

On Tuesday, the Arab Water Board voted to cease adding fluoride to the city's water supply.

Board members say a Supreme Court ruling allows them to revert back to their decision in 2015 to remove fluoride. They are expected to stop adding fluoride Wednesday morning.

The city previously sued the Arab Water Works board, and a local judge ordered them to restore fluoride to the system but that order was struck down by the state Supreme Court.

Some fluoride advocates hope the board will reconsider.

"What I hope they will do is continue to look at the latest EPA findings from the last three months and hopefully look at new sites, look at their new findings, and hopefully reverse their decision at some point in time," said John York, an Arab dentist.

Another resident, Melissa Thrower, was opposed to fluoridated water.

"I'm looking forward to being able to go to my local restaurants, eat whatever I want and be able to drink a soda and be a little more like things used to be before I started having those reactions to the chemical,” she said before the vote.

Manager Ted Hyatt said they will notify the state Public Health Department and ADEM of the changes.

Before the vote, Arab Water Board Chairman Ben Hornsby gave the following statement:

The unanimous decision of 8 - 0 from the Alabama Supreme Court validated our understanding of Alabama law pertaining to this case as researched by our board attorney prior to the decision being made. Alabama law is well established and has been settled for several decades and to that extent this lawsuit by the City of Arab was ill-advised and should never have been filed. As for the legal expenses the Arab Water Works Board repeatedly asked the City of Arab for a "stand still" on conduction of the Circuit Court case while we were awaiting the Alabama Supreme Court judgement of our appeal, but each request was denied by the city of Arab

Pete Evans provides 'evidence' for his fluoride Claims

Sarah Berry 
I have nothing against Pete Evans personally.
Humble tap water is good for you.And I understand why 1½ million people follow his Facebook page and look to him for advice. Particularly people looking for answers about why chronic disease is on the rise and why there is an epidemic of obesity.
Our health troubles, along with an eruption of documentaries and books questioning the health industry, public health and nutrition messages, and the backflipping of certain mainstream messages (think margarine and butter, sugar and fat) make it reasonable that people might question the voice of authority.
It's reasonable that people are sceptical and might look instead to shiny-toothed, glowy-skinned detractors like Evans, who are passionate about their cause and keen to cut through what some see as compromised or old advice. Amid some of his perfectly reasonable advice (steer clear of processed foods, don't be afraid of good fat, eat organic as much as you can) is incendiary advice such as fluoride is harmful and causes ill-health.
I was particularly interested in the apparent "mountain of evidence out there" about the "neurotoxin" as he called it on Sunday Night, as I have friends – well-educated professionals who work in health – who have become fearful of fluoride.
Pete did provide one piece of "evidence" on his Facebook page on Monday, linking to a 2015 study.
It is a study about which one doctor from the University of Oxford said there were "numerous reasons to be sceptical", while the regional director of Public Health England said the study's authors had not only "misrepresented the conclusions of the existing literature", but they had also ignored other factors and "made a basic error in reporting the results of their own model".
Michael Foley, of the Australian Dental Association Queensland and Queensland Health, adds that the study's author, Stephen Peckham, "has no expertise in thyroid diseases or epidemiology" and says "the Peckham paper is either at best a complete dud that should never have been published, or at worst fraudulent".
Case closed. It's just "common sense" as Evans would say, right?
Well, no. Because people cherry-pick the pieces of "evidence" that support their own theories and help to explain the inexplicable (like why perhaps Evans looks so god-dang healthy – perhaps because he doesn't eat rubbish and leads an active lifestyle, not because he avoids fluoride?).
Several commentators on Evans' page linked to a US "anti-fluoride" site, which not only provides a healthy dose of scaremongering, but also takes snippets of letters out of context and reproduces them to prove their point.
I sip on my tap water and send the link to the site, as well to the original study to Michael Foley and Jeroen Kroon of the Menzies Health Institute.
"Water fluoridation is without exception being endorsed by ALL credible health bodies (not only oral health) in Australia and all over the world," reiterates Professor Kroon.
In an interview with ABC radio on Monday, Foley, who is also an Australian expert on fluoride, pointed out that too much of anything (water, oxygen, fluoride) is dangerous.
In Australia, we add "one part per million of fluoride in the water and it has a dramatic benefit on dental public health", and no adverse effects.
In fact, the National Health and Medical Research Council states "water fluoridation at levels comparable to those used in Australia reduces the incidence of dental caries in the deciduous and permanent teeth of children by approximately 35 per cent, compared to unfluoridated water. Water fluoridation also increases the proportion of children who have no dental caries by approximately 15 per cent."
Foley added that "for decades" Queensland was the only state without fluoridated water and if there was a problem we would expect to have seen more health issues in all the other states.
"And that didn't happen," he said.
"Water fluoridation was introduced in Australia in 1956, with Sydney being fluoridated since 1968 and Melbourne since 1977," explained Matthew Hopcraft, a clinical associate professor, at the Melbourne Dental School, in an op-ed on Monday. "You would think that if there were harmful effects, someone would have been able to clearly demonstrate that link by now."
As for the anti-fluoride site that includes snippets of response letters from various European authorities stating that they don't fluoridate their water, Kroon says:
"It uses tactics such as scaremongering and raising 'health concerns', often by using weak research, taking research out of context or misquoting it and then sell that to the unsuspecting public as 'the truth'."
Foley agrees.
"This argument is rubbish," he says of the anti-fluoride "evidence", likening it to the anti-vax movement.
"The replies strongly suggest that the original letters asked if 'toxic fluorides' were added to the water. I argue that toxic fluorides are never added to the water. The low levels of fluoride in the water simply mimic what is seen in nature.
"Of those agencies who did respond, most appear to be water authorities with no expertise in the dental health benefits of water fluoridation. Water authorities are often opposed to water fluoridation (as one of the letters points out strongly) simply because governments usually require them to pay for it. You'll also notice that the quotes have been carefully selected, and many of the original letters point out the benefits of fluoride for dental health."
He adds that "the use of fluoride is almost universal in the Western world" and European countries that do not fluoridate their water instead use fluoridated salt, fluoride gels or (in the past) fluoride tablets.
Many also provide free dental treatment that includes the use of fluorides and, in certain countries that do not add fluoride to their water, it is not because it is "toxic" but because it is naturally occurring in the water so it doesn't need fortification
"The strong impression gained from this website is that the Fluoride Action Network only published snippets from a few letters that could support their argument," Foley says. "Why did they not ask reputable medical, dental or public health authorities? This is not a reputable argument. The Fluoride Action Network ... and their fringe group mates should be ashamed of themselves."
And Evans, by spruiking such misinformation, is not only being wilfully ignorant of the actual "whole body of evidence", it detracts from the good health advice he has to offer.

 Spruiking - that's a word I've never heard before.
Have you seen the video with Foley and Paul Connett? Foley wasn't very impressive.

I know Stephen Peckham and he is not capable of being involved in publishing a fraudulent paper. 

No adverse effects?  Isn't he aware of fluorosis? 

Only 10% of the UK is fluoridated and there is no great difference in dental health. Kent I believe has the best statistics and they certainly are not fluoridated.
Snipits? There many videos of top professional's backing Fluoride Action Network but I suppose they are not reputable once they declare their opposition to fluoridation.
As for cherry picking the authorities are as bad as anybody. I suppose we all look for evidence that support us.

Not new but worth seeing again

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Dog with a sweet tooth! Jack Russell who guzzled Coca Cola every DAY

Lady the Jack Russell, 20 (pictured) has had to have 12 of her 16 teeth removed. The dog once drank a sip of Coca Cola every dayLady is on the mend after her operation though she does suffer from doggy dementia and walks into doors

Dog with a sweet tooth! Jack Russell who guzzled Coca Cola every DAY has gone cold turkey after having nearly all its teeth removed (but Lady still enjoys chocolate buttons and flapjacks)
Lady the dog, 20, has had to have 12 of her 16 teeth removed in an operation
The pooch used to drink a sip of sugary Coca Cola every day for a whole year
Owner Kate Snook, 46, who live sin Wiltshire, says she's 'not a bad owner - in fact, Lady's spoilt'

Most dogs love to snack on bones, biscuits and scraps from the table - but one elderly Jack Russell prefers a much sweeter treat.
Twenty-year-old pooch Lady has had 12 of her 16 teeth removed after drinking sugary Cola-Cola every day.
The pooch got a taste for the original version of the fizzy drink - which contains about 12 teaspoons of sugar in a can - after taking a sneaky sip from her owner's glass............

Spoilt like the under privileged children who also have to have their teeth extracted.
Does anyone honestly believe that if the water the dog drank was fluoridated it would have prevented this from happening? That is apart from Ken and Steven of course.
The affect on the whole body from drinking all that sugar is going to bring other illnesses such as diabetes later on in its life.

Daily Mail - Two in three children's drinks are bad for teeth

Two in three children's drinks are bad for teeth: Water only accounts for a quarter of liquids drunk by five to nine-year-olds

Water accounts for only a quarter of liquids drunk by five to nine-year-olds

'Diet' fizzy drinks make up 30 percent of overall consumption
Tooth extractions among under-fives had increased 24 per cent in a decade
Two in three drinks consumed by primary school children are bad for their teeth, research suggests.
Water accounts for only a quarter of liquids drunk by five to nine-year-olds, while plain milk makes up only 10 per cent.
‘Diet’ fizzy drinks make up 30 per cent of overall consumption.............

Safe Water NEWS March 2017 Published for UK FREEDOM FROM FLUORIDE ALLIANCE by the Safe Water Information Service

What’s this, then?

A message to NPWA members. Welcome to this first edition of the UKFFFA – newsletter, designed specifically for members of the NPWA, who have been left somewhat bereft since the last Watershed appeared. This is a pilot edition. We are currently planning to send a similar edition at least three to four times a year, Each edition will be designed as an attachment that you can if you wish print on A4 sized sheets – a maximum of eight sides.

This format allows the production of a paper edition for those who do not have access to a computer. However, we would strongly recommend you accept the e-mailed version. As well as being extremely costly in postage, printing and time and wasteful of resources, the paper format always limits the content. The on-line edition is easier to include some colour, to add any extra news quickly, and to provide links to original material and resources such as video and audio recordings. You will also be able to see the last three years of local and international news, and reports and links to research and material that has been available during that time.

Your feedback on how the newsletter and the associated web site should be developed is welcome.

And who are you?
The UK Freedom from Fluoride Alliance was formed in 2016 and is in the process of creating a national service aimed at supporting activists and active groups in the UK. .
UKFFA founding organisations were the West Midlands against Fluoridation (WMAF), itself expanding from a regional to a national role and the Safe Water Information Service (SWIS), originated in 1985 by former NPWA members, and reactivated in 2013

Neither UKFFFA nor SWIS have large data bases of paid subscribers and we are not competing with NPWA for that role. Instead, by sharing costs and time those who are committed to ending fluoridation will be better informed and part of a strengthened national anti-fluoridation movement.

The UKFFFA coordinators and other contributors receive no payment and any funds received go to expenses of fighting the threats of fluoridation wherever they appear.

The compiler of the SWIS website that is now incorporated into UKFFFA continues to collect news on a daily basis, edit its presentation and to add editorial and comments from activists at least monthly. This newsletter is based on a selection of website postings from the last few weeks and has been expanded to include an update of the status of all current UK fluoridation proposals.

Why include American news?
The U.S. is the source of the original, and continuing, pressure for artificial (often euphemistically known as ‘community’) water fluoridation. Any success in repelling its entrenched position there would have a big impact on all of us. It also gives an idea of what it is like to be fighting in ten or more places at once. We also publish news from the US based Fluoride Action Network and the International Fluoride Free Teleconference (IFFT) as probably the largest sources of fluoride information anywhere.

Although many NPWA members will be well aware of the current battles and how the legal situation has changed since 2013, there may be others who would welcome a concise explanation to bring them up-to-date, and to include something of the most important recent research on the dangers of fluoride on the human body. In subsequent editions in 2017 we will re-present extracts from research and articles on
Legislation and Consultation after the ending of Strategic Health Authorities
Fluoridation and ADHD
Fluoride and thyroid malfunction
Fluoride as a neurotoxin
Is this enough for you?
If not, go to our web site ukfffa.org.uk

Feedback, please
Please reply – however briefly - to confirm you have received the News and would like to be kept in the loop. For various reasons, the address list used may not reflect recent changes, so please accept our apologies if the person to whom this is addressed has moved, or is no longer with us – just reply and we will put it right. Undelivered or refused postings will be automatically deleted from future mail or e-mail lists

The UKFFFA is here to help. Please keep supporting the NPWA and we will keep supporting you.

So what can I do?
You don’t have to go on marches and hold placards to help – just keep an eye on local papers and other media to be aware of any plans afoot in your area. If you have had any meeting or correspondence with authorities please tell us. Meanwhile, a brief mention in a local paper from an MP or a member of the local council or ‘Health and Well Being Board’ may alert you that someone is willing to promote a scheme. The sooner we know, the better the chances of countering the propaganda. Don’t wait for a ‘public consultation’. ‘If you suspect it – report it! ‘

For the most part, we are holding the fluoridationists at bay in the UK – but there is always a risk of frustrated fanatics pushing for mandatory schemes. Proposals to enforce fluoridation at a state or national level appear frequently in the US states, and one is in its final stage period of consultation in New Zealand. Despite massive public opposition and votes throughout the country, fluoridation still has not been beaten in Ireland. They never give up – and nor will we, until it is illegal to force anyone to consume a toxic substance, for supposed medical purposes, in uncontrollable quantities, whether needed or not, whether wanted or not, for ever. The arrogance of those who defend the practice is staggering. Whatever our age, we owe it to the generations after us to do what we can to stop it.

Current threats of fluoridation in the UK

Hull and the East Riding of Yorkshire: 
During November 2016, Hull City Council’s Executive Cabinet was asked to approve expenditure on an engineering feasibility study.
Paddy Holdsworth, John Pickles and other campaigners from Hull, supported by Joy Warren, attended both the Health and Well Being Board and a full Council meeting. There was little opportunity to intervene or question the process, and the Council’s overall Labour majority had already decided to agree to the feasibility study. We learned this week that Hull's Public Health budget is being used to commission a full engineering feasibility study.  Thus Hull City Council has embarked on the next step of the programme to push fluoridation on Hull and the East Riding.
Our hope is that the water company may, for whatever reason, delay their reply until the next election when there could be a change in the make-up of the Council.
Joy Warren has linked up with the Lib Dems and has discussed the issue with Mike Ross (Lib Dem Leader) following the Full Council Meeting in 2016 when the Labour Group voted to pursue WF.
Paddy Holdsworth, who lives in the East Riding, says that “The East Riding potentially has 87K people who may become fluoridated whilst Hull potentially has 345K. This means that the East Riding is responsible for 25% of the potential scheme with Hull responsible for 75%
Costs are projected to be far higher than in previous years. £2million capital cost and 330K annual revenue costs. That makes the East Riding responsible for finding £500K capital costs and £82.5K annual revenue costs. Hull would have to fork out £1.5m capital costs and £247.5K annual revenue costs. However, PHE has now undertaken to pay the capital costs.
Regarding the ongoing revenue costs, continuing reductions to public-sector funding would probably mean that other Council activities would need to cease or reduce in order to release the necessary funding. This means that revenue costs are not going to be paid from a ring-fenced health budget. Instead, Council Tax is going to be used fluoridate Hull. This is the weakness of the proposal and will bring Hullites out in their droves (I hope).”
Since most of the water goes down the drain without being drunk, most of the money spent on the acid and maintenance would be wasted. It can also be argued that capital costs are wasted: why spend all that money on fluoridation equipment when so little of the fluoride is swallowed?
For those NPWA members who live in Hull and the East Riding of Yorkshire, there is a Water Fluoridation Conversation meeting at the University of Hull at 1pm on 2nd April.  Pre-booking is essential in order to secure a seat.  Go to http://scifest.hull.ac.uk/whats-on/debates/water-fluoridation-conversation/ to book a free seat.  Hull For Pure Water will be on hand to give you a list of questions which can be asked of the all-pro-fluoridation panel.

A particularly tenacious Dental Public Health Consultant attached to Public Health England (Anita Dobson), considers that fluoridation is the answer to a maiden’s prayer.
However, on 4th October 2016, the Health and Well Being Board state the following: “In relation to water fluoridation, the meeting noted the complicated process in achieving this, not least because it was difficult to isolate Barnsley’s water supply from surrounding areas. It was therefore important that this not be progressed unless the position of neighbouring local authorities was clear.” In fact both Wakefield and Rotherham to the north and south of Barnsley have decided against fluoridation and since they are the nearest local authorities to Barnsley it seems unlikely that further efforts will be made by Anita Dobson to progress fluoridation until after Wakefield examines the issue again in 2018. In the meantime, we are collating all research which will convince Wakefield that the case in favour of fluoridation has not been proven.

During November, MP Graham Allen, rather precipitously issued a Press Release in which he urges Nottingham City Council to consider water fluoridation ‘As part of efforts to improve the ‘Victorian’ conditions of children’s teeth.’
This seems like the beginning of a campaign here. The article has the local MP mentioning Hull and bemoaning the North Nottingham five-year-olds who need surgery on their mouth (which does, of course, have nothing whatsoever to do with fluoride or the lack of it). ). As soon as it became apparent that the MP wanted Nottingham City Council to consider water fluoridation, Joy Warren shot off an email to him and to the Chair of the Health and Well-Being Board. Nothing further has been heard of the MP’s wish to get Nottingham fluoridated. Also, in the last few days we have learned that Graham Allen is in communication with The Teeth Team which is tackling dental decay amongst disadvantaged children in the City and it may be that fluoridation is somewhere over the horizon at this time. None-the-less, it’s disquieting to have had this pro-fluoridation MP nibbling away in Nottingham whilst our focus ought to be on Hull and the East Riding.

In 2016, The Overview and Scrutiny Committee decided to postpone consideration of WF until 2018 when the Committee will be pleased to review any research on WF which has been published since 2014.  We realise that PHE’s 2nd Health Monitoring Report will be due in 2018 and this will be reviewed by the Committee as well.  We have little faith in the veracity of the 2014 Health Monitoring Report since too many relevant aspects of WF were swept under the carpet. Indeed only those issues which PHE cherry-picked were included.


Councillors from Cumbria County Council will delay making a decision on water fluoridation until the findings of a study have been revealed.

Members of the council’s cabinet claim that they need more information about the impact of fluoridation on a local scale before they make a decision on the future of fluoridation in the area.
In September, a petition, which urged councillors to debate the possibility of removing fluoride from community water supplies, was presented to Allerdale Local Committee, and the council referred to the matter to the cabinet.
Before the cabinet made a decision, members were encouraged by the director of public health to wait for the findings of a study known as Catfish to be released. The Catfish study (Cumbrian Assessment of Teeth, a Fluoride Intervention Study for Health) aims to provide information about the impact of a recent break in fluoridation on children’s dental health
This begs the question: if the science was settled about fluoridation, then there wouldn’t be the need to undertake this type of study where the health and intelligence of children in West Cumbria is being sacrificed.

The good news was reported in Bedford Today on September 7th
Campaign group Fluoride Free Bedford have battled against fluoridation since 2002, creating their own documentary ‘Toxic tap water’ and petitioning Bedford Borough Council.
Last week Mayor of Bedford Dave Hodgson said at an executive council meeting: “Fluoride will not go [back] into the water' ...His comments follow a unanimous vote by councillors on July 20 to end water fluoridation in the borough.
And now,the latest news...
Jeremy Hunt has refused permission for Bedford Borough Council to break its contract with Industrial Chemicals Group Limited (the new supplier of the fluoridating acid) so Bedford is now forced to go out to Public Consultation.  Fluoride Free Bedford (FFB) will be active throughout the period leading up to the consultation and during the three months of the consultation.  Volunteers will be most welcome to help FFB.  Contact Cynthia Bagchi on her email:  cynthiabagchi@gmail.com.

Birmingham: The flagship of water fluoridation has been dealt a resounding shot across the bows. Apparently, “Thousands of Brummie kids are having lots of teeth extracted in hospital. The numbers have increased SEVENFOLD since 2010/11, when there were 208 hospital admissions for tooth extraction.” So much for reducing dental health inequalities across social groups. Pro-fluoridationists in Birmingham are dwelling in a surrealistic bubble of their own making. Yes – the statistics need to be analysed since we can’t depend on newspaper reporters interpreting the data correctly but, this is what we’ve been saying all along – that fluoride when swallowed does not reduce dental decay. In fact the British Fluoridation Society has up until recently declared systemic fluoride as being a minor mechanism.
More about this will be posted on the UKFFA site when we’ll tell you about the outcome of the ‘Conversation’ in Hull University on 2nd April where a Director of the BFS will be trying (in vain, we hope) to convince the audience that fluoride is “safe and effective”. Yuk!

International news:
Buda, Texas Feb 7
Bearing signs and cornflower blue T-shirts reading “Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting for,” members of the anti-fluoride group Buda Citizens for Safe Water came ready for a fight Tuesday evening.
But minutes before the public hearing began; the City Council surprised the crowd and passed a motion allowing voters to decide in November whether to fluoridate the city’s water supply.

Concord, New Hampshire Feb 15
Two attempts to curtail fluoridation of public water supplies - ...One bill, HB230, would have made it harder to file petitions seeking to add fluoride to water supplies, The other, HB585, would have changed state law to ban fluoridation outright; currently, - ... were killed by the House Municipal and County Government committee

Durango, Colorado Feb 8
The Durango City Council ... voted against a citizen-driven petition to prohibit the practice of adding fluoride to the city’s water supply, a process called fluoridation. Procedurally, it forces them to put it on the April ballot for a public vote.

Greenfield, MA Feb 9
After hearing overwhelming opposition from residents, the town’s Board of Health has decided not to support community water fluoridation. Board of Health Chairman Dr. William Doyle said. ““There were numerous citizens who voiced their concerns at both of our meetings,” “I think most of us were impressed with the public comments, really,” he said. “The people who were against it really came out in force and, quite frankly, some of their comments resonated with me and the board.”

Jonesborough Tennessee Feb 14
The Jonesborough Board of Mayor and Aldermen voted to remove fluoride from the town’s water supply after a 3-1 vote at its monthly meeting Monday...
Mayor Kelly Wolfe invited two community members to present each side of the issue one more time.... Jay Jarman argued ... that ingesting fluoride does not have any benefits and that fluoride can be administered through toothpaste, mouthwash, tablets and dentist visits.“I was unable to find any peer-reviewed scientific studies that show any benefit to ingesting fluoridated water,” Jarman said. “In fact, the opposite is true”. ...

Little Rock, Arkansas Feb 8
(KTHV) - A bill introduced to the Arkansas Senate on Wednesday is looking to amend laws concerning water districts and the fluoridation of water.
An election would be called if there's a majority vote of the board of directors of the district or a petition is signed by at least 35 percent of the voters in the district.
...The bill has yet to be read or sent to a committee for review.

Orange Water, NC Feb 10
CHAPEL HILL -- Human error and equipment malfunctions have been blamed for the over-fluoridation of water at the Jones Ferry Road Water Treatment Plant that prompted a shutdown and later contributed to one of the largest water main breaks in OWASA history.
..The shutdown began with an unintentional keystroke by a water treatment plant operator... an operator unintentionally sent a command to the fluoride feed pump ... “this resulted in a fluoride overfeed at approximately 10 times the expected feed rate.”

Parsons City, Kansas Feb 18
Parsons city commissioners will take up the usually contentious issue of fluoridation of the public water supply during their Monday evening meeting. The meeting’s agenda includes ... an application for a grant ... to re-introduce fluoride to the water supply after an absence of about four years.
The city discontinued ... adding fluoride at the water treatment plant in 2013 because of corrosion in piping at the point where fluoride and caustic soda were added. ... . .... ...When commissioners discussed fluoridation in 2013, a group of residents formed Parsons for Pure Water to oppose it.
The Parsons Sun included a poll for their readers: Should Parsons City reintroduce fluoride? We obliged with a vote, which then returned these results: Yes 50% No 50%

Truckee Meadows, Nevada Feb 15
A bill introduced by two state lawmakers that would require the Nevada Board of Health adopt regulations mandating the fluoridation of water in counties with more than 100,000 residents concerns local officials.
Voters in 2002 rejected WC-1, which would fluoridate the water system. “I object to a state mandate,” Councilwoman Jenny Brekhus said. “Water shouldn’t be used as a medical delivery system.” Ultimately, the board declined to support the bill as written because of cost and the decision of voters 15 years ago

Moncton, New Brunswick Feb 7
After Calgary banned fluoride three years ago, a report using spurious data attacked the decision as having caused more decay in the children’s teeth. This is another attempt to reverse a city’s decision to end fluoridation.
Moncton Mayor Dawn Arnold has told a group of citizens council will take more than a month to decide if fluoride will go back into the city's drinking water.
About 25 people rose to stand behind fluoridation opponent Jennifer Jones. "Public water does not belong to dentists," she said. "Public water is not the way to administer a drug, especially a drug as controversial as fluoride.".... It will cost about $20,000 to upgrade the system if fluoride is returned to the water supply.

Peel, Ontario Feb 15
Peel is currently the target for legal action by an anti-fluoride group and this seems to show the council squirming to find a way out.
Peel is asking the provincial government to conduct toxicity tests on the additive used to fluoridate the region’s drinking water. Regional council wants the Ontario government to provide clear evidence the additive is safe for human consumption.
...Peel councillors decided to drop the local controversy in the Ontario government’s lap. For a year now, councillors on Peel Region’s Community Water Fluoridation Committee have been re-examining the benefits and potential health risks associated with adding fluoride to the municipal drinking water system. .... However, it appears council members are no closer to forming that position than they were a year ago.

Western Australia Feb 16
An alliance between micro-parties and independents could result in the election of a Fluoride Free WA representative in the Upper House from fewer than 1000 votes, electoral analysts believe.
The deal, which The West Australian understands was finalised by preference broker Glenn Druery at the weekend, includes more than half the groups contesting the East Metropolitan Region putting Fluoride Free WA second on their group voting tickets.
...The Fluoride Free party, registered last month, aims to stop water fluoridation in WA. Before achieving that, the party wants to implement policies including warnings on water bills and council and Health Department websites about using fluoridation for infants’ formula, and free fluoride-free water in every childcare centre, hospital, senior nursing home and a source in every council.
Fluoride Free Western Australia Upper House candidate John Watt (pictured) said the deal had been “fantastic”.

New Zealand
Feb 7
Two online articles in ‘stuff.nz’ referred to the proposed Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill that will take the decision to fluoridate away from councils and give it to district health boards (DHBs). The bill passed its first reading and was open for public comment until February 2. One stated that the draft legislation includes a fine of $200,000, and a further $10,000 a day, where councils refused to act on a board direction to fluoridate water supplies. Another reported that the Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) has failed to make a submission on a controversial fluoridation bill because disagreements meant it ran out of time. The latter helpfully provided another poll should Christchurch water be fluoridated? This time, the SWIS vote was supported by in a majority: Yes 37 %, No 63 %

Co-ordinators: Joy Warren and Ivor Hueting.
Contact: info@safewaterinformation.org