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

UK Against Fluoridation

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Rotten state of children's teeth in England exposed in hospital data

Last year there were 34,205 cases of under-10s receiving hospital treatment for tooth decay, twice as many as for broken arm
Tooth decay is the most common reason that children between five and nine need treatment in hospital, with 25,923 cases within this age group in 2016-17, up slightly from 25,875 the previous year.
Prof Michael Escudier, dean of the FDS, said: “Sometimes this can be unavoidable, but when it comes to admissions caused by tooth decay, most cases are a result of simple preventative steps not being taken. “Tens of thousands of children every year are having to go through the distressing experience of having teeth removed under general anaesthetic. Reducing sugar consumption, regularly brushing teeth with fluoride toothpaste and routine dental visits will all help ensure this is avoided.”
Twice as many children under the age of 10 receive hospital treatment for tooth decay as those treated for broken arms, figures for England show. There were 34,205 cases of patients under 10 needing hospital treatment for dental caries in the year to March, the youngest less than a year old, according to the faculty of dental surgery (FDS) at the Royal College of Surgeons.
Over the same period there were 17,043 broken arms, as well as 19,584 cases of asthma, 10,397 cases of epilepsy and 3,805 cases of appendicitis needing hospital treatment in the age group, according to analysis of NHS Digital data.
The FDS says tooth decay is preventable in 90% of cases but many children are not going to the dentist, with parents often unaware that it is free for the under-18s. In all, there were 45,224 cases of children up to 19 who needed hospital treatment because of tooth decay in 2016-17. Among 10- to-14-year-olds, admissions rose from 7,249 the previous year to 7,303. But there was better news among children aged one to four, with the number requiring treatment falling from 8,800 to 8,281.
The British Dental Association blamed the figures on a lack of a coherent national strategy to tackle the problem. Henrik Overgaard-Nielsen, the BDA’s chair of general dental practice, said: “These shocking statistics are rooted in an abject failure by government to tackle a preventable disease.
“While we are hearing positive noises, ministers have not met words with action. Scotland and Wales have dedicated national programmes to improve children’s oral health, England has been offered a new logo and limited action in a handful of council wards.
“It’s a scandal that when some local authorities are doing sterling work, others are sitting on their hands while Westminster offers radio silence.” The FDS has backed a campaign from the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry, calling for all children to receive a dental check by the age of one. 
Analysis by the faculty this year showed that nearly four in five children between one and two years old had not seen an NHS dentist in the previous 12 months. 
Escudier said dental visits at an early age enabled children, as well as their parents and carers, to learn about good oral health practice and helped them become less fearful of visiting the dentists when they are older.
Steve McCabe, who is leading an MPs’ debate on child oral health in Westminster Hall on Tuesday, described the situation as frightening.
The Labour MP for Birmingham Selly Oak said: “Apart from the fact that this is costing the NHS rather a lot of money, it is clearly not very healthy for our children. “It would appear that there are a mixture of factors involved. It’s partly sugar in the diet, but it’s also the lack of visits to the dentist and this is possibly parental ignorance about the need and also some doubts about what dentists will provide.”
A Department of Health spokeswoman said: “Improving oral health in children is a priority for this government – latest figures show 6.8 million children were seen by a dentist in England over the past year. 
“Last month, NHS England began its Starting Well programme that targeted 13 high-need areas to improve dental hygiene in children under five. Further work is also under way to ensure dental services meet the needs of the local population.”

Monday, October 30, 2017


More by Margaret Cammack Smith

“…To one who is familiar with the disfiguring dental defectknown as mottled enamel which affects the teeth of every
person who drinks water containing as little as 1p.p.m.
of fluorine during the years of tooth formation, this
recommendation [water fluoridation] seems,
to put it mildly  unsafe. There is ample
evidence that mottled teeth, though they
be some- what more resistant to the onset of
decay, are structurally weak, and that unfortunately
when decay does set in, the result is often disastrous… “

Fluoridation Queensland Logo

 How many lab animals and humans need to suffer
before we learn fluoridation does not work?

Eighty + years is a long time for science to stall.

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Calgary Herald - Opinion: Fluoridation should be city council's top priority

The following is a rebuttal to a column by Licia Corbella, “The science is not settled on water fluoridation,” which appeared in the Herald on Oct. 12. The original piece appears below this response.
As the newly elected Calgary city councillors take their seats, an important public health issue awaits. Children and other residents are suffering because of the 2011 decision to cease fluoridating the water.
Public health officials strongly recommend that Calgary resume this safe and effective practice.
Calgarians approved fluoridation twice, in plebiscites in 1989 and 1998. From 1991 to 2011, Calgarians enjoyed fluoridation’s benefits until some city councillors and a journalist, apparently animated by a U.S. based anti-fluoridation group, significantly misinformed the public and city councillors.  
Without having campaigned on the issue, 10 city councillors suddenly removed what 114,105 citizens had approved. This action was anti-democratic.
The decision was ill-considered because fluoridation is safe. The decision was harmful because fluoride is 26 to 44 per cent effective in reducing cavities.
More than 3,000 peer-reviewed studies demonstrate that fluoridation is effective and support its safety. Fluoridation is recommended by Alberta Health Services, Health Canada, the Canadian Dental Association, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization and the leading national and international dental and medical organizations.  
How likely is it that public health, dental and medical organizations are all wrong? The highly qualified people who staff and support these organizations work independently and have developed their considered conclusions after following rigorous scientific protocols for their studies, including peer review and publication.   
Those advocating for fluoridation are not in conflict of interest; they are focused on the public interest. By contrast, some bottled water companies encourage the false belief that tap water is unsafe to benefit financially from the fear they create.
Fluoridation has been used for 70 years and none of the claimed harms have materialized, despite mischaracterizations of studies irrelevant to North America and conducted in Mexico and in China, where lead and arsenic also occur in their water.
The arguments advanced against fluoridation are weak. First, it is false to claim that fluoridation at 0.7 parts per million is unsafe and ineffective. We call upon all journalists to base all fluoridation commentary on the facts: fluoride is safe and effective.
A second poor argument is that fluoridation is mass medication. Fluoride is no more a medication than calcium is a medication. Fluoride is a mineral. Fluoride occurs naturally in Calgary water at concentrations of 0.1 to 0.4 parts per million. Fluoridation merely entails topping it up to 0.7 parts per million, which is therapeutic.
If fluoride were really so harmful, then why aren’t opponents demanding that Calgary eliminate this naturally occurring mineral from our water? There is no difference between the fluoride ion that naturally exists in the water and the one that is added. Adjusting fluoride levels in community water is akin to adding iodine to salt, vitamin D to milk and vitamin B to bread and cereal.
A third argument accepts that fluoridation is a public good, but claims that Calgary should not pay for it — the province should. But the taxes that fund provinces and cities come from taxpayers. Fluoridation in every North American city is a municipal preventative health measure — just as chlorination, streetlights and crosswalks are preventative health measures. 
The cost of fluoridation is relatively small – between $5 million and $10 million for equipment and $750,000 for the annual operating costs, which amounts to 60 cents per person per year. Capital costs can be amortized, and several studies have proven that every $1 invested in fluoridation yields approximately $38 to $60 savings in treatment costs. Fluoridation is demonstrated to be cost effective.
The real question is: Why do Calgarians let a few unqualified people who misrepresent the scientific evidence, prevent Calgary children, seniors and others from having the same good oral health that people enjoy in Toronto, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Miami, to name just a few cities? Why isn’t Calgary like the 87 per cent of NHL home cities that use fluoridation?  
Calgary dentists and orthodontists are distressed by the significant changes they are seeing. Dental cavities did not occur as often or grow with such speed when the water was fluoridated. Now things are much worse. Ask any anaesthesiologist at the Children’s Hospital, where a long waiting list now exists for children’s dental care under general anaesthetic.
The solution is not to build more operating rooms with dental instruments. Calgarians voted twice for fluoridation. It is time to honour democracy and to reduce the avoidable pain and suffering of Calgarians. We call upon city councillors to make the reinstatement of fluoridation their first priority.
  1. Juliet Guichon SJD, Calgarians for Kids’ Health
  2. Jon Meddings, MD, FRCPC, Dean, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary
  3. Paul Allison, BDS, FDSRCS(Eng), MSc, PhD, President, Association of Canadian Faculties of Dentistry; Dean, Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University
  4. Mintoo Basahti,  President, Alberta Dental Association and College
  5. Douglas Brothwell, DMD, DDPH, MSc, Dean, College of Dentistry, University of Saskatchewan
  6. Blaine M Cleghorn, DMD MS, Professor, Assistant Dean, Clinics, Faculty of Dentistry, Dalhousie University
  7. Gerry Uswak, DMD, MPH, Acting Director Clinics & Community Programs; Former Dean, College of Dentistry, University of Saskatchewan
  8. Ferne Kraglund, DDS, MSc, FRCD(C), Assistant Dean for Student Affairs, Faculty of Dentistry, Dalhousie University
  9. Mintoo Basahti,  President, Alberta Dental Association and College
  10. Allison McGeer, M.D., FRCPC, Microbiologist, Infectious Disease Consultant, Department of Microbiology, Mount Sinai Hospital
  11. Shahrokh Esfandiari, BSc, DMD, MSc, PhD, Post-Doc, FICOI, FITI, Associate Professor, Faculty of Dentistry, Division of Oral Health and Society, McGill University
  12. Jocelyne Feine, Professor, Oral Health and Society Division, Faculty of Dentistry; Professor, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University
  13. Ernest Lam, B.Sc. (HONS.), D.M.D., M.Sc., CERT. O.M.R., Ph.D., DIP., A.B.O.M.R., F.R.D. (C), Professor, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto
  14. C. Tenenbaum, DDS, Dip. Perio., PhD, FRCD(C), Dentist-in-Chief, Sinai Health System; Professor of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry; Professor of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Faculty of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto;
  15. Michael J. Sigal, DDS, MSc, Dip Ped, FRCD (C), Professor Pediatric Dentistry Past Head Pediatric Dentistry and Past Director Graduate Program, University of Toronto
  16. James A Dickinson MBBS PhD CCFP FRACGP Professor of Family Medicine and Community Health Sciences U Calgary. 
  17. Hazel Stewart, Director, Dental and Oral Health Services, Toronto Public Health
  18. Wendy Wadey, DDS, General Practitioner of Dentistry, Calgary
  19. June Dabbagh, DDS, General Practitioner of Dentistry, Calgary
  20. Laurie Houston, DDS, General Practitioner of Dentistry, Calgary
  21. Larry Stanleigh, BSc, MSc, DDS, FADI, FICD, FACD, FPFA, General Practitioner of Dentistry, Calgary
  22. Angela Demeter, BSc, DDS, MSc, Dip Perio, FRCD(C), Periodontist

The science is not settled on water fluoridation

By Licia Corbella
Edmonton has fluoride in its drinking water. Calgary does not. Take a wild guess which of the two cities’children have more cavities? If you said Calgary, you’d be wrong! Chew on that for a while. Despite continuing to have fluoride in their water, kids in Edmonton have more tooth decay than Calgary kids, in their baby teeth and their permanent teeth, says a University of Calgary study.
But, how can that be? Isn’t fluoride the wonder supplement that’s supposed to mean little kids will suffer less tooth decay? That’s what many proponents of adding fluoride to our drinking water would have you believe. They have also urged people to base their position on fluoridated water on scientific data. Finally, something we can agree on! A 2016 U of C study called Measuring the short-term impact of fluoridation cessation on dental caries in Grade 2 children using tooth surface indices shows that fluoride isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be.
You might have guessed by the above title, that this study isn’t exactly a page turner. You also might recall news coverage on this report. Pretty much the only thing mentioned in the past about this study was how there was an increase in primary tooth decay in both Edmonton and Calgary but “the magnitude of the increase was greater in Calgary” following the cessation of fluoride. What’s curious is why reporting on the study stopped there.
What was not widely published is that according to the very same study, the number of cavities in permanent teeth actually decreased in Calgary since fluoridation ended. You read that correctly.
“For all tooth surfaces among permanent teeth, there was a statistically significant decrease in Calgary … which was not observed in Edmonton.” Interesting, isn’t it, that this juicy morsel from the report was never quoted? So, let’s recap that last paragraph. Since May 2011, when fluoride was removed from Calgary’s drinking water but has remained in Edmonton’s water since 1967, there has been a “statistically significant decrease in Calgary” for all tooth surfaces among permanent teeth but the same decrease did not occur in Edmonton. Drink that in slowly.
Consider the following conclusion: “In permanent teeth, we elsewhere (in unpublished results) reported a decrease in caries over time in both Calgary (fluoride cessation) and Edmonton (fluoride continued), which was larger and more consistent in Calgary.” The rate of improvement was better in Calgary than Edmonton.
Yet there are those who want Calgarians heading to the polls on Oct. 16 to elect only candidates who will put fluoridation back on tap in Calgary. The group Calgarians for Kids’Health presented anecdotal evidence of kids with tooth decay on Sept. 25, that included presenting a mother who said: “I have a fourand-a-half-year-old here and her teeth are falling out because she didn’t get fluoride from the day she was born.”
There is no reason why a young child’s teeth should be falling out unless poor diet, disease, or a lack of dental care exists.
The reason fluoride was removed from Calgary’s drinking water in 2011 was because council was being asked to upgrade the fluoride-adding equipment at Calgary’s Glenmore and Bearspaw water treatment facilities – something that was expected to cost between $3 million to $6 million. In addition, the city spent $750,000 annually in operational costs. The debate ensued and freedom of choice to not be medicated through our water supply was rightly chosen by most of council.
Alberta Liberal MLA Dr. David Swann said recently that he’s “deeply disappointed by the level of misinformation and fearmongering surrounding fluoridation. It flies in the face of 35 years of research that fluoride water treatment is a safe and effective way to protect our dental health.”
Swann and other proponents of fluoridation are trying to claim that the science is settled. But if you actually read recent studies about fluoridation, you will see that’s not the case. A very recent University of Toronto study is linking fluoride exposure in pregnant women to lower intelligence in their children. Another meta analysis from 2012 shows 27 other reports pointing to the same potential results.
If the science has been settled for 35 years, as Swann claims, why did medical experts recommend that fluoride in Calgary’s water and across North America be reduced from one part per million to 0.7 ppm in 1998? Why in 2006 did the American Dental Association recommend that parents not prepare baby formula with fluoridated water, something that the Centers for Disease Control still recommends?
How can a scientist insist on medicating people when it’s impossible to regulate the dose? “Collectively, the literature (including our study) indicates that the impact of fluoridation cessation on dental caries is not uniformly positive or negative, but varies by time and place and sorting out the reasons for different patterns is important,” states the U of C study.
Ingesting fluoride, rather than having it topically painted or swished around teeth, has been linked to other negative health effects, including impacts to the thyroid, kidneys or bones. It’s not fearmongering.
I used to be one of those dismissive proponents of fluoride until my position was ripped out by the root when I realized fluoridated water harmed my children.
Many Calgarians, including my sons, have evidence of fluorosis on their teeth. It’s evident every time they smile and that makes me frown. Those chalky white blotches and streaks on their teeth are not just cosmetic. It means that their bones have been affected after fluoride was literally forced down our throats.

3 Simple Ways To Reduce Your Fluoride Intake

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Buda Citizens for Safe Water

The Major Fluoride Risk Study You Never Heard Of

A few weeks ago, Willamette Week’s lead story, “What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You,” featured Project Censored, highlighting important stories the media didn’t cover.
The headline lends itself perfectly to another story ignored by U.S. newspapers: higher fluoride levels in pregnant women have been linked to lower IQ’s in their children. The levels were well within the range of American women drinking fluoridated water.
This was the finding of a major international study published last month, funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and led by the University of Toronto school of public health.
The study, one of the most robust ever conducted on fluoride’s risks, followed mother-child pairs in Mexico City for over 12 years. For every 0.5 part per million increase in prenatal exposure, children lost 2.5 – 3 IQ points. While noting the study didn’t prove fluoridation lowered children’s IQ’s and more research was needed, the authors cited its strong methodology, including taking into account a dozen possible confounding factors, which didn’t affect the results.
As detailed in my Lund Report article, the latest study continues the trend of nearly 200 others in just the past ten years on fluoride’s neurotoxicity. Almost all found fluoride harmed the brain, many at levels at or slightly higher than water fluoridation.
There’s no doubt ingested fluoride is neurotoxic. The only questions are the dose, when and how often the exposure occurs, and which individuals – born and unborn - are more susceptible to its toxicity. Once fluoride is added to drinking water, there’s no control over any of these.
Last year, the Fluoride Action Network, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Food and Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association and several others petitioned the EPA to ban fluoridation chemicals based on their neurotoxicity.
Despite the significant, one-sided scientific evidence, the EPA denied the petition, saying it wasn’t conclusive. In response, the organizations filed a lawsuit in federal court, where a decision on the EPA’s motion to dismiss the case is due in a few months.
The American Dental Association, the leading pro-fluoridation group, claimed that the study doesn’t apply to fluoridated water in the U.S. Lead author Dr. Howard Hu saw it differently, asserting “This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It’s directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children. So, to say it has no relevance to the folks in the U.S. seems disingenuous.”
Many others unaffiliated with the study agreed with Hu, including Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who said “we should pay attention to this” Dr. Leonardo Trasande, a pediatrician at NYU, stated it “raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water."
CNN, Newsweek, Medical News Today, Medical Express and even the Reader’s Digest covered the story, as did many media outlets In Canada.
In light of these developments, I asked the four largest general audience newspapers in Portland, the Oregonian, Portland Tribune, Willamette Week and Portland Mercury, to do the same. I thought this would be newsworthy, especially considering Portland’s 2012-13 rip-roaring fluoridation battle that generated hundreds of articles and major TV and radio coverage.
Local editors felt differently. All four declined or didn’t return messages.
Perhaps unpleasant memories were part of the reason. All had concluded the practice was safe and wrote pro-fluoridation editorials, but Portlanders emphatically rejected it 61% - 39%.
Harvard review had just been published finding children, mostly in China, exposed to higher fluoride levels had lower IQ’s in 26 out of 27 studies. World-renowned scientist Philippe Grandjean, one of the co-authors, said that while the study wasn’t conclusive and more research was needed, “Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain.”But Willamette Week and the Mercury concluded it had no relevance to fluoridation.
The Oregonian was especially dismissive, unleashing seven editorials, plus an editorial cartoondepicting fluoridation opponents as a toothless rabble in front of city hall. It branded claims that fluoridation could harm kids’ brains, lower IQ’s and cause other health problems as “crackpottery.” (I didn’t even know such a word existed.)
Today, it’s interesting what the Oregonian does think is newsworthy. Recent health articles covered early detection of ovarian cancer, standing desks that helped students lose weight and how staying away from cell phones helps decision-making.
These stories all had merit – they’re relevant and interesting. So was another recommending that parents take their babies to a dentist. This begs two questions:
Isn’t preventing the potential loss of a child’s intelligence as newsworthy as preventing a cavity?
Even more important, pregnant women drinking fluoridated water are, in effect, part of a continuing experiment testing the risk of brain damage in their children – without their consent. How is this ethical?
It’s a big experiment. Although most countries reject fluoridation, nearly 75% of the U.S. population has it, including 38 towns in Oregon, Albany, Beaverton, Corvallis and Salem among them.
How many studies showing serious harm will it take before the sacred cow of fluoridation is put out to pasture for good?
I don’t know, but one thing’s for sure – you have to know about them first.

Getting fluoride out of water becomes pressing matter

A leaked document has revealed that The American Council on Science and Health is being funded by corporations that have a financial stake in the scientific debates that the group is addressing. The ACSH is a self proclaimed independent research and advocacy organization devoted to debunking "junk science", which is the term that they use for the activist science and health organizations that actually seem to be looking out for us. Does the ACSH have the public's best interest at heart, or are they only looking out for the interests of the organizations who are paying them for it like Coca Cola, Monsanto, Chevron and McDonalds? Lissette Padilla and Mark Sovel discuss this and more, in this clip from the Lip News.

Published Four years ago but I doubt if anything has changed.

Friday, October 27, 2017

FAN Newsletter

Conference Presentation: Fluoride & Hypothyroidism
Our second presentation from September's 6th Citizens Conference on Fluoride features Stephen Peckham--Director, Centre for Health Services Studies, and Professor of Health Policy at the University of Kent--providing a detailed overview of his recent observational study that found an association between fluoridated water and underactive thyroid, or hypothyroidism.
Stay tuned, we will continue to release high-quality videos of conference presenations over the next few weeks, with Paul Connett's Fluoride Toxicology 101 presention the next in line to be released in the coming days.
(Click on the picture to watch the video)

You can easily help educate others about this video on social media by sharing FAN’s Facebook or Twitter posts.  For more information regarding fluoride's impact on the thyroid, visit FAN's webpage on the topic.

All-star NFL Quarterback Warns Against Fluoride
Tom Brady, the star veteran quarterback of the New England Patriots and considered possibly the best quarterback of all time, has recently authored a book on staying healthy in which he mentions fluoride in water.
In chapter seven of his new book (The TB12 Method: How to Achieve A Lifetime of Sustained Peak Performance), while discussing the importance of hydration, Brady acknowledges the risks of ingesting fluoride, advising readers to remove it from tap water by filtration.
He writes, "Tap water is water that comes from a municipal source. Depending on where you live, most sources of tap water contain fluoride, chlorine, and, in some cases, lead. Excessive amounts of both fluoride and chlorine have now been linked to a number of health risks. Drink tap water only if you filter it first, which gets rid of many impurities. Even when you use tap water for steaming vegetables, it's better to filter it first."
(**Special Thanks to Mike Dolan from UMASS Amherst for pointing this out.)
October Teleconference Audio
If you missed this month's International Fluoride Free Teleconference, you can now listen to the audio at home or on your mobile device.  The call featured a discussion on the new position paper against fluoride use from the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT), a professional organization of dentists, and FAN coalition partner. Two of the authors, Amanda Just and Jack Kall, share their story of how it came to be and the challenges that were overcome in the process.

To register for November’s free teleconference CLICK HERE.


Stuart Cooper Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network

Australia - Fluoride in Gunnedah: poll shows residents split on fluoridation in Gunnedah Shire's water supply.

SOMETHING IN THE WATER: A recent NVI poll showed locals are divided on water fluoridation.GUNNEDAH locals are still divided about adding fluoride to the local water supply, according to a new poll. a new poll.
The Fairfax Media poll was conducted in the wake of council’s decision on October 18 to allow the NSW Department of Health to conduct public consultation on the issue in Gunnedah.

Out of 308 votes cast, 59.8 per cent of votes were against fluoride being added to the shire’s water supply, while 35.95 per cent of voters were in favour of the water treatment.

It was resolved at the meeting that NSW Health would consult with the community and canvas opinion regarding adding fluoride to the water supply.

Council will hear the results of the public consultation at the December council meeting before making a final decision at February’s council meeting.

Gunnedah Dental Centre’s Dr Mary Jane Bateman said fluoridation was not based on new research.

“I was trained in Sydney and we were taught by Noel Martin who brought this research to Australia in the 1960’s and 70’s,” Dr Bateman said.

“There’s nothing modern about this research, the benefits of fluoride have long been established.”

Dr Bateman said it is young children that benefit most from fluoridation.

“It gives kids a solid start to lifelong strong teeth,” she said.

“Fluoridation along with a healthy diet low on foods with sugar and rich in calcium will give kids the dental support they will need.

“If fluoride is not added to the water supply, it is the youngest generation that will suffer.”

If fluoride is not added to the water supply, it is the youngest generation that will suffer.

Dr Mary Jane Bateman
The Gunnedah dentist said there are options for people against fluoridation.

“My suggestion to people that are against fluoridation would be to get a water filter to filter it out if you are against it,” she said.

“I will say those who are against it don’t see the after effects surgery and things like that have on young kids.”

Dr Bateman also said adding fluoride to the water would help ease the burden of dental health.

“It’s an unnecessary burden on the health system and the people who are suffering from dental health issues,” she said.

“Fluoridation will solve 90 per cent of the population’s dental problems.”

Gunnedah Shire Mayor Jamie Chaffey said council was eager to see the findings from NSW Health.

“We are eagerly awaiting the results from NSW Health regarding public feedback,” Cr Chaffey said.

“So far the small representation of feedback I have received has been positive in terms of water fluoridation.”

Cr Chaffey said information sheets had already been sent out to ratepayers.

“The fact sheets have been sent out by NSW Health and that process is on track.”

90% benefit! Where did Dr Bateman get those statistics from. Ken you accuse us of fibbing what about this porker?

Thursday, October 26, 2017

USA - Shenandoah receives $25,000 award for new water treatment plant

Pictured: Officials with Delta Dental of Iowa presented the city of Shenandoah a $25,000 check on Tuesday, October 24, 2017. The city was the recipient of a grant for work at the new water treatment plant. 
At Tuesday night's Shenandoah City Council meeting, officials with Delta Dental of Iowa presented the city a $25,000 check which will support fluoridation equipment at the water treatment plant that was installed earlier this year.
Shenandoah City Administrator Jim Davey tells KMA News the city is honored to receive the grant funds."With the building of this new water treatment facility, our fluoridation program has gone off the charts as far as the state of the art facility," Davey said. "We have a separate room for our fluoride room. We were encouraged to apply for a $25,000 grant through Delta Dental. I sat down with water superintendent Kirk Kemper and we filled out all of the necessary paperwork. Ultimately, we did get accepted for the award."
Suzanne Heckenlaible is the VP of Public Affairs for Delta Dental of Iowa, and was among the officials present at Tuesday night's council meeting. She says community water fluoridation is one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 21st century.......
There's always money for fluoridation.

India - For fluoride-free water

IIT-H team develops jamun seed-based ‘activated carbon’ to remove fluoride from drinking water

Researchers at the Indian Institute of Technology-Hyderabad (IIT-H) have developed a jamun (black plum) seed-based ‘activated carbon’ to remove fluoride from drinking water to the levels considered acceptable by the World Health Organisation (WHO).

A team led by Chandra Shekhar Sharma, assistant professor, Department of Chemical Engineering at IIT-Hyderabad, was involved in the study and the findings were recently published in the Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering.

Jamun seed powder was first converted into a highly porous carbon material by a chemical treatment followed by processing at higher temperatures to improve its efficiency. Then, trials were carried out with the obtained material for synthetic fluoride solutions prepared in the laboratory.

Later, this was tested on the groundwater samples collected from Nalgonda district, one of the worst fluoride-affected areas in the country. After the treatment, the fluoride concentration was reduced to the acceptable limit of WHO (less than 1.5 mg/l).

“We found that the jamun seed-derived carbon was much better when compared to other biomass-derived carbons which were reported in earlier experiments. Jamun, as a seasonal fruit, is abundantly available in India and its seed powder is known to be used effectively in various Ayurvedic formulations,” explained Prof. Sharma.

“The carbon material prepared with jamun seeds has been studied in detail and found to have exceptional properties,” chipped in Ramya Araga, the lead author of the study.

Prof. Sharma also pointed out that groundwater was a major source of drinking water throughout the country and in about 17 States, fluoride concentration was found to be higher than the recommended limit. This has been a major problem in safe drinking water supply and the search was on to find a cost-effective solution. Although commercialisation of the experiment has a long way to go, more research into the bio-seed-based waste material for removing fluoride from drinking water could help the country to provide clean and safe drinking water to the citizens, added the IIT-H professor, recently chosen for the prestigious Young Scientist Award by the National Science Academy of India for his contribution to physical sciences.

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Don't remember seeing this one before

New fluoride debate falters

What is it with these anti-fluoride campaigners – and particularly their leaders? They make a song and dance about having “science on their side.” They will heavily promote the latest research and papers if they can argue that they confirm their bias. And they will email politicians or make submissions to local bodies making scientific claims – often with citations and long lists of references.
But we simply can not get them to enter into a good faith scientific discussion of the sort I suggested in Do we need a new fluoride debate?
I thought this was going to happen. Bill Osmunson, the current Direct of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), had agreed and even produced an initial article for posting. But he has now pulled out and asked me not to post his article. Apparently, my critique of a recent paper by him and his colleagues from FAN (see Flaw and porkie in anti-fluoride report claiming a flaw in Canadian study) was the straw that broke the camels back as far as he was concerned.
Talk about tiptoeing around a discussion partner. How can one have a discussion with someone this sensitive?

Excuses, excuses!

This is the explanation he gives for his withdrawal from the planned exchange:
“I have second thoughts about a discussion with you.  Do not publish my comments.
After reading your comments in response to Neurath, it became obvious that you have no interest in discovering the truth or protecting the public.  Nor do you have reasonable judgment to evaluate research.
You do have good mechanical skills, but not judgment.
You correctly take weaker arguments and point out they are weak.  But you do not comment or appreciate the main more powerful issues.  Your comments make it sound like there is no value because some points have lower value.  Only a person who carefully rereads McLaren and Neurath, and then your comments understands some of your points are valid and you have missed others which are powerful.
In addition, you use derogatory, unprofessional mocking terms to attack the person instead of the issues.  I’m not interested in being your porky or sparky or pimp.
You are unprofessional and are not worth the time.”
Mind you, in a previous email he had acknowledged that his mates (presumably in FAN) were unhappy about him participating in this good-faith scientific exchange. He wrote:
“Several people have told me not to respond to you, because you are unprofessional with your statements and comments.  You attack the messenger instead of the message and you have such severe bias and faith in fluoride that you must have worked for the tobacco companies to learn your strident blind bias.  
OK, I gave you a try once before and found you to be violent with your personal attacks and lack of judgment.”
 Sounds like “excuses, excuses,” to me. Surely I am not such a horrible person? I asked Bill to identify anything in my exchange with Paul Connett (see The Fluoride Debate) where I had behaved in the way he charged. He couldn’t. And I challenge anyone else to identify such behaviour on my part in that exchange.

The only two comments so far are from Steve Slott giving his unalloyed backing for Ken Perrott