One pint of fluoridated water per day 'could be risk to children'

Daily Echo: CONTROVERSY: Health bosses want to put fluoride in tap water. CONTROVERSY: Health bosses want to put fluoride in tap water.

IT IS the most controversial public health issue to hit Hampshire for decades.

And now the Daily Echo can reveal that drinking just a pint of tap water a day could expose young children to risks of permanent sideeffects once supplies have fluoride added to them.

The revelation comes as health bosses have admitted for the first time they don’t expect fluoridation to be in place until 2014 – five years after it was given the green light.

Opponents raised fears of a “significant proportion” of a generation of youngsters – especially those who were given formula as babies – growing up with mottled teeth.

Campaigners say the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) should now “give up”

on the delayed project, saying it is “morally and ethically”

wrong to fluoridate water while questions remain over its impact.

Health chiefs admit they will give guidance to parents once supplies are fluoridated, but insist there is no evidence to suggest it will cause any problems.

But responding to a Freedom of Information request, the SHA did not dispute any findings of a review of water fluoridation by the EU’s Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER).

That committee stated that youngsters aged from one to six years old should not drink more than half a litre of fluoridated tap water a day if they use fluoride toothpaste.

It added that intake of water could be doubled for six to 12-year-olds.

The SHA said those findings were based on the amount of fluoride in the water being 1.5mg per litre. The scheme covering parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams, would see 1mg of fluoride per litre. But the SHA accepted there is a different picture for younger children.

Related links

Former chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation Stephen Peckham said children having too much fluoride will be at risk of mottled teeth from fluorosis, while there is still a lack of conclusive evidence to say it doesn’t lead to other health problems.

He said: “Most babies on formula food will have a lot more than a pint of water a day.

“The SHA says it doesn’t matter if children exceed those limits because the only effect will be dental fluorosis, which is aesthetic, but in a significant proportion of cases it seriously damages the enamel of the teeth. It’s a recognised health problem that needs costly and repeated treatment.

“Four per cent of Southampton children of a particular age will have teeth damaged by excess fluoride consumption when they were younger.

“It is ethically and morally wrong to continue with water fluoridation while there are unanswered questions.”

Health chiefs insisted information will be given to parents about supervising young children when brushing their teeth “through media channels and healthcare professionals”, but said they believe there are no health problems from fluoride.

Dental consultant for Southampton and Hampshire Dr Jeyenthi John said: “Best available evidence, including SCHER, and close monitoring of UK population using either naturally fluoridated water or water from fluoridation schemes, does not support an association between water fluoridation and health implications for the population.”

Comments (88)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:26am Thu 17 Jan 13

southy says...

"The scheme covering parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams"

the area is a lot bigger, the area will inclued Calshot, Ashurst
"The scheme covering parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams" the area is a lot bigger, the area will inclued Calshot, Ashurst southy

11:56am Thu 17 Jan 13

cliffwalker says...

Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER.

In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.
Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER. In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death. cliffwalker

11:59am Thu 17 Jan 13

likewatchingbrazil says...

no one wants it apart from the water company to help keep it's pipes clean. yet again the customer has no say
no one wants it apart from the water company to help keep it's pipes clean. yet again the customer has no say likewatchingbrazil

12:04pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

It's morally wrong and illegal to do it due to it being classed as medicating people on mass, against their will, it's a human right to be able to CHOOSE whether we want to be medicated as INDIVIDUALS, if people want to drink poison then let them add it to their OWN glasses of water.
It's morally wrong and illegal to do it due to it being classed as medicating people on mass, against their will, it's a human right to be able to CHOOSE whether we want to be medicated as INDIVIDUALS, if people want to drink poison then let them add it to their OWN glasses of water. Ginger_cyclist

12:12pm Thu 17 Jan 13

southy says...

likewatchingbrazil wrote:
no one wants it apart from the water company to help keep it's pipes clean. yet again the customer has no say
The water companys do not want it also, apart from it will damage pipes over the long run, if some thing go's wrong they are libel and SHA are not
[quote][p][bold]likewatchingbrazil[/bold] wrote: no one wants it apart from the water company to help keep it's pipes clean. yet again the customer has no say[/p][/quote]The water companys do not want it also, apart from it will damage pipes over the long run, if some thing go's wrong they are libel and SHA are not southy

12:15pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Taskforce 141 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
It's morally wrong and illegal to do it due to it being classed as medicating people on mass, against their will, it's a human right to be able to CHOOSE whether we want to be medicated as INDIVIDUALS, if people want to drink poison then let them add it to their OWN glasses of water.
absolutely - a case for the European Court of Human Rights perhaps...
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: It's morally wrong and illegal to do it due to it being classed as medicating people on mass, against their will, it's a human right to be able to CHOOSE whether we want to be medicated as INDIVIDUALS, if people want to drink poison then let them add it to their OWN glasses of water.[/p][/quote]absolutely - a case for the European Court of Human Rights perhaps... Taskforce 141

12:18pm Thu 17 Jan 13

freefinker says...

cliffwalker wrote:
Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER.

In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.
.. and perhaps you would like to comment on the nvCJD debacle, just to balance things up a little.

The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?
[quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER. In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.[/p][/quote].. and perhaps you would like to comment on the nvCJD debacle, just to balance things up a little. The scientists got it wrong, didn't they? freefinker

12:23pm Thu 17 Jan 13

St Retford says...

cliffwalker wrote:
Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER.

In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.
Don't come on here using reason and common sense. You'll get nowhere.
[quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER. In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.[/p][/quote]Don't come on here using reason and common sense. You'll get nowhere. St Retford

12:24pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

southy wrote:
likewatchingbrazil wrote:
no one wants it apart from the water company to help keep it's pipes clean. yet again the customer has no say
The water companys do not want it also, apart from it will damage pipes over the long run, if some thing go's wrong they are libel and SHA are not
It will damage pipes due to the accelerated leaching effect that fluoride has when added to water, it is also another thing that will make people ill through lead and copper poisoning if they live in old houses with lead pipes outside.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]likewatchingbrazil[/bold] wrote: no one wants it apart from the water company to help keep it's pipes clean. yet again the customer has no say[/p][/quote]The water companys do not want it also, apart from it will damage pipes over the long run, if some thing go's wrong they are libel and SHA are not[/p][/quote]It will damage pipes due to the accelerated leaching effect that fluoride has when added to water, it is also another thing that will make people ill through lead and copper poisoning if they live in old houses with lead pipes outside. Ginger_cyclist

12:28pm Thu 17 Jan 13

St Retford says...

freefinker wrote:
cliffwalker wrote:
Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER.

In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.
.. and perhaps you would like to comment on the nvCJD debacle, just to balance things up a little.

The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?
I think the point cliffwalker is making is that in the media there's a tendency to create 'balance' between differing scientific viewpoints, despite the fact that balance is usually out of all proportion to the consensus of the scientific community.

Hence an issue like climate change, which no credible climate scientist disputes, is often presented as some 50-50 case for/case against issue as though half of all scientists dispute it's happening.

This issue is similar in that the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion believes adding fluoride to water causes no health problems, yet giving credence to groups like Hampshire Against Fluoridation somehow creates an equivalence with more credible science in the mind of readers.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER. In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.[/p][/quote].. and perhaps you would like to comment on the nvCJD debacle, just to balance things up a little. The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?[/p][/quote]I think the point cliffwalker is making is that in the media there's a tendency to create 'balance' between differing scientific viewpoints, despite the fact that balance is usually out of all proportion to the consensus of the scientific community. Hence an issue like climate change, which no credible climate scientist disputes, is often presented as some 50-50 case for/case against issue as though half of all scientists dispute it's happening. This issue is similar in that the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion believes adding fluoride to water causes no health problems, yet giving credence to groups like Hampshire Against Fluoridation somehow creates an equivalence with more credible science in the mind of readers. St Retford

12:32pm Thu 17 Jan 13

freefinker says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
southy wrote:
likewatchingbrazil wrote:
no one wants it apart from the water company to help keep it's pipes clean. yet again the customer has no say
The water companys do not want it also, apart from it will damage pipes over the long run, if some thing go's wrong they are libel and SHA are not
It will damage pipes due to the accelerated leaching effect that fluoride has when added to water, it is also another thing that will make people ill through lead and copper poisoning if they live in old houses with lead pipes outside.
.. in our hard water zone down here in south Hampshire, the build up of 'scale' in lead and copper pipes will prevent the leaching you mention.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]likewatchingbrazil[/bold] wrote: no one wants it apart from the water company to help keep it's pipes clean. yet again the customer has no say[/p][/quote]The water companys do not want it also, apart from it will damage pipes over the long run, if some thing go's wrong they are libel and SHA are not[/p][/quote]It will damage pipes due to the accelerated leaching effect that fluoride has when added to water, it is also another thing that will make people ill through lead and copper poisoning if they live in old houses with lead pipes outside.[/p][/quote].. in our hard water zone down here in south Hampshire, the build up of 'scale' in lead and copper pipes will prevent the leaching you mention. freefinker

12:33pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Taskforce 141 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
It's morally wrong and illegal to do it due to it being classed as medicating people on mass, against their will, it's a human right to be able to CHOOSE whether we want to be medicated as INDIVIDUALS, if people want to drink poison then let them add it to their OWN glasses of water.
absolutely - a case for the European Court of Human Rights perhaps...
Indeed.
[quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: It's morally wrong and illegal to do it due to it being classed as medicating people on mass, against their will, it's a human right to be able to CHOOSE whether we want to be medicated as INDIVIDUALS, if people want to drink poison then let them add it to their OWN glasses of water.[/p][/quote]absolutely - a case for the European Court of Human Rights perhaps...[/p][/quote]Indeed. Ginger_cyclist

12:34pm Thu 17 Jan 13

southy says...

cliffwalker wrote:
Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER.

In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.
These are childhood illess and in kids do not present a major problem, its in adults where the problems are for the small number that don't catch these illess while they was kids
[quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER. In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.[/p][/quote]These are childhood illess and in kids do not present a major problem, its in adults where the problems are for the small number that don't catch these illess while they was kids southy

12:35pm Thu 17 Jan 13

freefinker says...

St Retford wrote:
freefinker wrote:
cliffwalker wrote:
Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER.

In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.
.. and perhaps you would like to comment on the nvCJD debacle, just to balance things up a little.

The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?
I think the point cliffwalker is making is that in the media there's a tendency to create 'balance' between differing scientific viewpoints, despite the fact that balance is usually out of all proportion to the consensus of the scientific community.

Hence an issue like climate change, which no credible climate scientist disputes, is often presented as some 50-50 case for/case against issue as though half of all scientists dispute it's happening.

This issue is similar in that the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion believes adding fluoride to water causes no health problems, yet giving credence to groups like Hampshire Against Fluoridation somehow creates an equivalence with more credible science in the mind of readers.
.. so you too wouldn't like to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus.

Other points taken.
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER. In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.[/p][/quote].. and perhaps you would like to comment on the nvCJD debacle, just to balance things up a little. The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?[/p][/quote]I think the point cliffwalker is making is that in the media there's a tendency to create 'balance' between differing scientific viewpoints, despite the fact that balance is usually out of all proportion to the consensus of the scientific community. Hence an issue like climate change, which no credible climate scientist disputes, is often presented as some 50-50 case for/case against issue as though half of all scientists dispute it's happening. This issue is similar in that the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion believes adding fluoride to water causes no health problems, yet giving credence to groups like Hampshire Against Fluoridation somehow creates an equivalence with more credible science in the mind of readers.[/p][/quote].. so you too wouldn't like to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus. Other points taken. freefinker

12:36pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

freefinker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
southy wrote:
likewatchingbrazil wrote:
no one wants it apart from the water company to help keep it's pipes clean. yet again the customer has no say
The water companys do not want it also, apart from it will damage pipes over the long run, if some thing go's wrong they are libel and SHA are not
It will damage pipes due to the accelerated leaching effect that fluoride has when added to water, it is also another thing that will make people ill through lead and copper poisoning if they live in old houses with lead pipes outside.
.. in our hard water zone down here in south Hampshire, the build up of 'scale' in lead and copper pipes will prevent the leaching you mention.
Nope, limescale is basically chalk which is porous like a sponge, therefore there is still a leaching effect.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]likewatchingbrazil[/bold] wrote: no one wants it apart from the water company to help keep it's pipes clean. yet again the customer has no say[/p][/quote]The water companys do not want it also, apart from it will damage pipes over the long run, if some thing go's wrong they are libel and SHA are not[/p][/quote]It will damage pipes due to the accelerated leaching effect that fluoride has when added to water, it is also another thing that will make people ill through lead and copper poisoning if they live in old houses with lead pipes outside.[/p][/quote].. in our hard water zone down here in south Hampshire, the build up of 'scale' in lead and copper pipes will prevent the leaching you mention.[/p][/quote]Nope, limescale is basically chalk which is porous like a sponge, therefore there is still a leaching effect. Ginger_cyclist

12:51pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Bagamn says...

If I am paying for pure drinking water and the company is ordered to add impurities to it's product, can I sue for them selling an impure product? I don't buy horsemeat in my sausages, so why should I be forced to tolerate what some unelected bunch of people decide what thay want to do against the opinion of the general public. Maybe we could sue the individual members of the Board as they are the ones responsible for maqking the decision.
If I am paying for pure drinking water and the company is ordered to add impurities to it's product, can I sue for them selling an impure product? I don't buy horsemeat in my sausages, so why should I be forced to tolerate what some unelected bunch of people decide what thay want to do against the opinion of the general public. Maybe we could sue the individual members of the Board as they are the ones responsible for maqking the decision. Bagamn

1:13pm Thu 17 Jan 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
southy wrote:
likewatchingbrazil wrote:
no one wants it apart from the water company to help keep it's pipes clean. yet again the customer has no say
The water companys do not want it also, apart from it will damage pipes over the long run, if some thing go's wrong they are libel and SHA are not
It will damage pipes due to the accelerated leaching effect that fluoride has when added to water, it is also another thing that will make people ill through lead and copper poisoning if they live in old houses with lead pipes outside.
.. in our hard water zone down here in south Hampshire, the build up of 'scale' in lead and copper pipes will prevent the leaching you mention.
But not on plastic pipes, the choking of lime scale in plastic pipes tends to break away and not get that build up like you do in metal pipes, leaching of plastic pipes will damage the pipe and also at any join part where the plasic and metal meets you will get a metal poisoning of the water
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]likewatchingbrazil[/bold] wrote: no one wants it apart from the water company to help keep it's pipes clean. yet again the customer has no say[/p][/quote]The water companys do not want it also, apart from it will damage pipes over the long run, if some thing go's wrong they are libel and SHA are not[/p][/quote]It will damage pipes due to the accelerated leaching effect that fluoride has when added to water, it is also another thing that will make people ill through lead and copper poisoning if they live in old houses with lead pipes outside.[/p][/quote].. in our hard water zone down here in south Hampshire, the build up of 'scale' in lead and copper pipes will prevent the leaching you mention.[/p][/quote]But not on plastic pipes, the choking of lime scale in plastic pipes tends to break away and not get that build up like you do in metal pipes, leaching of plastic pipes will damage the pipe and also at any join part where the plasic and metal meets you will get a metal poisoning of the water southy

1:16pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Chas O'Bursledon says...

What a load of scaremongering, unscientific nonsense! My spouse and I grew up before floridation in London. We and our parents have/had mouthfulls of fillings and crowns. Our children grew up in South West London with floridated water. They are in their twenties and have three fillings between them. They are very healthy and happy. Grow up Southampton! Do the right thing for your children's dental health. Stop believing the toxic rubbish and scaremongering put forward by the ill informed. Welcome floridation. Worry more about the toxic additives in your food that you so willingly buy from the supermarkets. They really are feeding you rubbish in every bottle of cola, every bag of crisps and every ready meal you have ever bought!
What a load of scaremongering, unscientific nonsense! My spouse and I grew up before floridation in London. We and our parents have/had mouthfulls of fillings and crowns. Our children grew up in South West London with floridated water. They are in their twenties and have three fillings between them. They are very healthy and happy. Grow up Southampton! Do the right thing for your children's dental health. Stop believing the toxic rubbish and scaremongering put forward by the ill informed. Welcome floridation. Worry more about the toxic additives in your food that you so willingly buy from the supermarkets. They really are feeding you rubbish in every bottle of cola, every bag of crisps and every ready meal you have ever bought! Chas O'Bursledon

1:17pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Beer Monster says...

freefinker wrote:
cliffwalker wrote:
Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER.

In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.
.. and perhaps you would like to comment on the nvCJD debacle, just to balance things up a little.

The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?
They just started using horse instead of cow...
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER. In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.[/p][/quote].. and perhaps you would like to comment on the nvCJD debacle, just to balance things up a little. The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?[/p][/quote]They just started using horse instead of cow... Beer Monster

1:32pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Linesman says...

The proposed amount of fluoride to be added is considerably less than that which the EUs Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) tests were conducted.

More than half a century of fluoridation in the Midlands would be a far better test.

No evidence of a generation suffering from mottled teeth there.
The proposed amount of fluoride to be added is considerably less than that which the EUs Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) tests were conducted. More than half a century of fluoridation in the Midlands would be a far better test. No evidence of a generation suffering from mottled teeth there. Linesman

1:32pm Thu 17 Jan 13

St Retford says...

freefinker wrote:
St Retford wrote:
freefinker wrote:
cliffwalker wrote:
Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER.

In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.
.. and perhaps you would like to comment on the nvCJD debacle, just to balance things up a little.

The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?
I think the point cliffwalker is making is that in the media there's a tendency to create 'balance' between differing scientific viewpoints, despite the fact that balance is usually out of all proportion to the consensus of the scientific community.

Hence an issue like climate change, which no credible climate scientist disputes, is often presented as some 50-50 case for/case against issue as though half of all scientists dispute it's happening.

This issue is similar in that the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion believes adding fluoride to water causes no health problems, yet giving credence to groups like Hampshire Against Fluoridation somehow creates an equivalence with more credible science in the mind of readers.
.. so you too wouldn't like to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus.

Other points taken.
I liked their first album.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER. In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.[/p][/quote].. and perhaps you would like to comment on the nvCJD debacle, just to balance things up a little. The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?[/p][/quote]I think the point cliffwalker is making is that in the media there's a tendency to create 'balance' between differing scientific viewpoints, despite the fact that balance is usually out of all proportion to the consensus of the scientific community. Hence an issue like climate change, which no credible climate scientist disputes, is often presented as some 50-50 case for/case against issue as though half of all scientists dispute it's happening. This issue is similar in that the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion believes adding fluoride to water causes no health problems, yet giving credence to groups like Hampshire Against Fluoridation somehow creates an equivalence with more credible science in the mind of readers.[/p][/quote].. so you too wouldn't like to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus. Other points taken.[/p][/quote]I liked their first album. St Retford

1:36pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Stephen J says...

I do not want the medication or other fortification of tap water to become an accepted means of generating social outcomes. Not only is it an abhorrent idea at face value, in terms of medication, it completely circumvents the central guiding principle of informed consent.
I do not want the medication or other fortification of tap water to become an accepted means of generating social outcomes. Not only is it an abhorrent idea at face value, in terms of medication, it completely circumvents the central guiding principle of informed consent. Stephen J

1:39pm Thu 17 Jan 13

saintinpattaya says...

Chas O'Bursledon wrote:
What a load of scaremongering, unscientific nonsense! My spouse and I grew up before floridation in London. We and our parents have/had mouthfulls of fillings and crowns. Our children grew up in South West London with floridated water. They are in their twenties and have three fillings between them. They are very healthy and happy. Grow up Southampton! Do the right thing for your children's dental health. Stop believing the toxic rubbish and scaremongering put forward by the ill informed. Welcome floridation. Worry more about the toxic additives in your food that you so willingly buy from the supermarkets. They really are feeding you rubbish in every bottle of cola, every bag of crisps and every ready meal you have ever bought!
Is there not floride in toothpaste if we
want it. Why be so cantankerous
[quote][p][bold]Chas O'Bursledon[/bold] wrote: What a load of scaremongering, unscientific nonsense! My spouse and I grew up before floridation in London. We and our parents have/had mouthfulls of fillings and crowns. Our children grew up in South West London with floridated water. They are in their twenties and have three fillings between them. They are very healthy and happy. Grow up Southampton! Do the right thing for your children's dental health. Stop believing the toxic rubbish and scaremongering put forward by the ill informed. Welcome floridation. Worry more about the toxic additives in your food that you so willingly buy from the supermarkets. They really are feeding you rubbish in every bottle of cola, every bag of crisps and every ready meal you have ever bought![/p][/quote]Is there not floride in toothpaste if we want it. Why be so cantankerous saintinpattaya

2:00pm Thu 17 Jan 13

business-guru says...

southy wrote:
cliffwalker wrote:
Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER.

In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.
These are childhood illess and in kids do not present a major problem, its in adults where the problems are for the small number that don't catch these illess while they was kids
total rubbish. Measels is a killer. 1-in-20 kids that get measels are seriously ill, about 1-in-100 can have long term complications and 1-in-200 will die.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER. In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.[/p][/quote]These are childhood illess and in kids do not present a major problem, its in adults where the problems are for the small number that don't catch these illess while they was kids[/p][/quote]total rubbish. Measels is a killer. 1-in-20 kids that get measels are seriously ill, about 1-in-100 can have long term complications and 1-in-200 will die. business-guru

2:02pm Thu 17 Jan 13

business-guru says...

there are no harmful side effects to fluoride in water. This is a complete non-issue.
there are no harmful side effects to fluoride in water. This is a complete non-issue. business-guru

2:03pm Thu 17 Jan 13

freefinker says...

Chas O'Bursledon wrote:
What a load of scaremongering, unscientific nonsense! My spouse and I grew up before floridation in London. We and our parents have/had mouthfulls of fillings and crowns. Our children grew up in South West London with floridated water. They are in their twenties and have three fillings between them. They are very healthy and happy. Grow up Southampton! Do the right thing for your children's dental health. Stop believing the toxic rubbish and scaremongering put forward by the ill informed. Welcome floridation. Worry more about the toxic additives in your food that you so willingly buy from the supermarkets. They really are feeding you rubbish in every bottle of cola, every bag of crisps and every ready meal you have ever bought!
SW London does NOT have a fluoridated water supply.
[quote][p][bold]Chas O'Bursledon[/bold] wrote: What a load of scaremongering, unscientific nonsense! My spouse and I grew up before floridation in London. We and our parents have/had mouthfulls of fillings and crowns. Our children grew up in South West London with floridated water. They are in their twenties and have three fillings between them. They are very healthy and happy. Grow up Southampton! Do the right thing for your children's dental health. Stop believing the toxic rubbish and scaremongering put forward by the ill informed. Welcome floridation. Worry more about the toxic additives in your food that you so willingly buy from the supermarkets. They really are feeding you rubbish in every bottle of cola, every bag of crisps and every ready meal you have ever bought![/p][/quote]SW London does NOT have a fluoridated water supply. freefinker

2:23pm Thu 17 Jan 13

st1halo says...

Once again people seem to be missing the point on this matter. It doesn't matter whether it is good, bad or has no effect. The point is that a majority of people are against it and so the proposal should be dropped. This typifies this country and the 'We know whats best for you' attitude of those in high places. Just like the European Question, it should be our choice to make.
Once again people seem to be missing the point on this matter. It doesn't matter whether it is good, bad or has no effect. The point is that a majority of people are against it and so the proposal should be dropped. This typifies this country and the 'We know whats best for you' attitude of those in high places. Just like the European Question, it should be our choice to make. st1halo

2:34pm Thu 17 Jan 13

southy says...

business-guru wrote:
southy wrote:
cliffwalker wrote:
Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER.

In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.
These are childhood illess and in kids do not present a major problem, its in adults where the problems are for the small number that don't catch these illess while they was kids
total rubbish. Measels is a killer. 1-in-20 kids that get measels are seriously ill, about 1-in-100 can have long term complications and 1-in-200 will die.
measels is only might be a killer to 2%, the 2% who can not build up anti-bodys to the illess. and when it do kill its because another illess is caught and the body starts to over heat, more people have died though psoriasis when the body is mostly covered it causes the body to start to over heat a slow cooking
[quote][p][bold]business-guru[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER. In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.[/p][/quote]These are childhood illess and in kids do not present a major problem, its in adults where the problems are for the small number that don't catch these illess while they was kids[/p][/quote]total rubbish. Measels is a killer. 1-in-20 kids that get measels are seriously ill, about 1-in-100 can have long term complications and 1-in-200 will die.[/p][/quote]measels is only might be a killer to 2%, the 2% who can not build up anti-bodys to the illess. and when it do kill its because another illess is caught and the body starts to over heat, more people have died though psoriasis when the body is mostly covered it causes the body to start to over heat a slow cooking southy

2:46pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Subject48 says...

If this goes ahead i am suing the hsa/council for a breach of human rights and demand they install a filtration device in my home.
If this goes ahead i am suing the hsa/council for a breach of human rights and demand they install a filtration device in my home. Subject48

3:07pm Thu 17 Jan 13

St Retford says...

Subject48 wrote:
If this goes ahead i am suing the hsa/council for a breach of human rights and demand they install a filtration device in my home.
I bet you ten pounds you don't.
[quote][p][bold]Subject48[/bold] wrote: If this goes ahead i am suing the hsa/council for a breach of human rights and demand they install a filtration device in my home.[/p][/quote]I bet you ten pounds you don't. St Retford

3:17pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Subject48 says...

I bet you 100£ Iwill. I have legal cover on my home insurance and if they refuse to honour my claim I will just fill out a small claims form myself.... I will be £20 in profit because last I rememebr it costs 80£ to file one.
I bet you 100£ Iwill. I have legal cover on my home insurance and if they refuse to honour my claim I will just fill out a small claims form myself.... I will be £20 in profit because last I rememebr it costs 80£ to file one. Subject48

3:44pm Thu 17 Jan 13

cliffwalker says...

freefinker wrote:
cliffwalker wrote:
Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER.

In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.
.. and perhaps you would like to comment on the nvCJD debacle, just to balance things up a little.

The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?
I don't know quite what you mean in saying "The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?" but let's assume that some error was made by one or more scientists in relation to CJD (and it would be astonishing if no one had been in error - that's part of the scientific method). Who do you suppose we should consult in relation to matters of fact for which we cannot obtain first hand evidence ourselves? The Bible, Mystic Meg, gut feeling?
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER. In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.[/p][/quote].. and perhaps you would like to comment on the nvCJD debacle, just to balance things up a little. The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?[/p][/quote]I don't know quite what you mean in saying "The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?" but let's assume that some error was made by one or more scientists in relation to CJD (and it would be astonishing if no one had been in error - that's part of the scientific method). Who do you suppose we should consult in relation to matters of fact for which we cannot obtain first hand evidence ourselves? The Bible, Mystic Meg, gut feeling? cliffwalker

4:12pm Thu 17 Jan 13

southy says...

cliffwalker wrote:
freefinker wrote:
cliffwalker wrote:
Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER.

In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.
.. and perhaps you would like to comment on the nvCJD debacle, just to balance things up a little.

The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?
I don't know quite what you mean in saying "The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?" but let's assume that some error was made by one or more scientists in relation to CJD (and it would be astonishing if no one had been in error - that's part of the scientific method). Who do you suppose we should consult in relation to matters of fact for which we cannot obtain first hand evidence ourselves? The Bible, Mystic Meg, gut feeling?
Scientists get things wrong more often than they get it right, to get science right its need to study, take notes, run test and or experiments ect ect ect, a 1000 tests but only 1 will be right.
[quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER. In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.[/p][/quote].. and perhaps you would like to comment on the nvCJD debacle, just to balance things up a little. The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?[/p][/quote]I don't know quite what you mean in saying "The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?" but let's assume that some error was made by one or more scientists in relation to CJD (and it would be astonishing if no one had been in error - that's part of the scientific method). Who do you suppose we should consult in relation to matters of fact for which we cannot obtain first hand evidence ourselves? The Bible, Mystic Meg, gut feeling?[/p][/quote]Scientists get things wrong more often than they get it right, to get science right its need to study, take notes, run test and or experiments ect ect ect, a 1000 tests but only 1 will be right. southy

4:41pm Thu 17 Jan 13

kingnotail says...

business-guru wrote:
southy wrote:
cliffwalker wrote:
Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER.

In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.
These are childhood illess and in kids do not present a major problem, its in adults where the problems are for the small number that don't catch these illess while they was kids
total rubbish. Measels is a killer. 1-in-20 kids that get measels are seriously ill, about 1-in-100 can have long term complications and 1-in-200 will die.
Don't even bother trying mate. This delusional douchebag knows nothing about anything, and from his posts is evidently barely literate.
[quote][p][bold]business-guru[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER. In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.[/p][/quote]These are childhood illess and in kids do not present a major problem, its in adults where the problems are for the small number that don't catch these illess while they was kids[/p][/quote]total rubbish. Measels is a killer. 1-in-20 kids that get measels are seriously ill, about 1-in-100 can have long term complications and 1-in-200 will die.[/p][/quote]Don't even bother trying mate. This delusional douchebag knows nothing about anything, and from his posts is evidently barely literate. kingnotail

5:22pm Thu 17 Jan 13

southy says...

kingnotail wrote:
business-guru wrote:
southy wrote:
cliffwalker wrote:
Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER.

In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.
These are childhood illess and in kids do not present a major problem, its in adults where the problems are for the small number that don't catch these illess while they was kids
total rubbish. Measels is a killer. 1-in-20 kids that get measels are seriously ill, about 1-in-100 can have long term complications and 1-in-200 will die.
Don't even bother trying mate. This delusional douchebag knows nothing about anything, and from his posts is evidently barely literate.
measels is only might be a killer to 2%, the 2% who can not build up anti-bodys to the illess. and when it do kill its because another illess is caught and the body starts to over heat, more people have died though psoriasis when the body is mostly covered it causes the body to start to over heat a slow cooking
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]business-guru[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER. In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.[/p][/quote]These are childhood illess and in kids do not present a major problem, its in adults where the problems are for the small number that don't catch these illess while they was kids[/p][/quote]total rubbish. Measels is a killer. 1-in-20 kids that get measels are seriously ill, about 1-in-100 can have long term complications and 1-in-200 will die.[/p][/quote]Don't even bother trying mate. This delusional douchebag knows nothing about anything, and from his posts is evidently barely literate.[/p][/quote]measels is only might be a killer to 2%, the 2% who can not build up anti-bodys to the illess. and when it do kill its because another illess is caught and the body starts to over heat, more people have died though psoriasis when the body is mostly covered it causes the body to start to over heat a slow cooking southy

5:46pm Thu 17 Jan 13

freefinker says...

cliffwalker wrote:
freefinker wrote:
cliffwalker wrote:
Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER.

In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.
.. and perhaps you would like to comment on the nvCJD debacle, just to balance things up a little.

The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?
I don't know quite what you mean in saying "The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?" but let's assume that some error was made by one or more scientists in relation to CJD (and it would be astonishing if no one had been in error - that's part of the scientific method). Who do you suppose we should consult in relation to matters of fact for which we cannot obtain first hand evidence ourselves? The Bible, Mystic Meg, gut feeling?
.. actually, it wasn't just 'one or more scientists' who assured the government that there could be no transmission of nvCJD from beef to Homo sapiens. It was more or less the whole scientific community with relevant experience saying this; with the government's Chief Scientific Officer and Chief Veterinary Officer at the forefront.

And they were all wrong. The so called mavericks who disputed the consensus received the same ridicule that the much larger percentage of anti-fluoride scientists and dentists are receiving today from the ‘establishment’.
[quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER. In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.[/p][/quote].. and perhaps you would like to comment on the nvCJD debacle, just to balance things up a little. The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?[/p][/quote]I don't know quite what you mean in saying "The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?" but let's assume that some error was made by one or more scientists in relation to CJD (and it would be astonishing if no one had been in error - that's part of the scientific method). Who do you suppose we should consult in relation to matters of fact for which we cannot obtain first hand evidence ourselves? The Bible, Mystic Meg, gut feeling?[/p][/quote].. actually, it wasn't just 'one or more scientists' who assured the government that there could be no transmission of nvCJD from beef to Homo sapiens. It was more or less the whole scientific community with relevant experience saying this; with the government's Chief Scientific Officer and Chief Veterinary Officer at the forefront. And they were all wrong. The so called mavericks who disputed the consensus received the same ridicule that the much larger percentage of anti-fluoride scientists and dentists are receiving today from the ‘establishment’. freefinker

6:04pm Thu 17 Jan 13

BeyondImagination says...

cliffwalker wrote:
Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER.

In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.
Nobody died of under dosing on fluoride. It's incredible the SHA is suggesting parents follow their guidance for their children drinking tap water. These are people who do not have the intelligence to get their children to brush their teeth once or twice a day. The SHA have now, at long last admitted they are prepared to deliberately damage the teeth of 4% of the children in the Southampton area. I wish I could say Unbelievable! but no, this is par for the course.
[quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER. In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.[/p][/quote]Nobody died of under dosing on fluoride. It's incredible the SHA is suggesting parents follow their guidance for their children drinking tap water. These are people who do not have the intelligence to get their children to brush their teeth once or twice a day. The SHA have now, at long last admitted they are prepared to deliberately damage the teeth of 4% of the children in the Southampton area. I wish I could say Unbelievable! but no, this is par for the course. BeyondImagination

6:51pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Stephen J says...

freefinker wrote:
cliffwalker wrote:
freefinker wrote:
cliffwalker wrote:
Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER.

In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.
.. and perhaps you would like to comment on the nvCJD debacle, just to balance things up a little.

The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?
I don't know quite what you mean in saying "The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?" but let's assume that some error was made by one or more scientists in relation to CJD (and it would be astonishing if no one had been in error - that's part of the scientific method). Who do you suppose we should consult in relation to matters of fact for which we cannot obtain first hand evidence ourselves? The Bible, Mystic Meg, gut feeling?
.. actually, it wasn't just 'one or more scientists' who assured the government that there could be no transmission of nvCJD from beef to Homo sapiens. It was more or less the whole scientific community with relevant experience saying this; with the government's Chief Scientific Officer and Chief Veterinary Officer at the forefront.

And they were all wrong. The so called mavericks who disputed the consensus received the same ridicule that the much larger percentage of anti-fluoride scientists and dentists are receiving today from the ‘establishment’.
That's the problem. The "scientific consensus" is a load of scientists agreeing with other scientists simply because they are scientists, without even attempting themselves to falsify the evidence. The mavericks are often those prepared to critically appraise the evidence using the proper scientific method.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER. In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.[/p][/quote].. and perhaps you would like to comment on the nvCJD debacle, just to balance things up a little. The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?[/p][/quote]I don't know quite what you mean in saying "The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?" but let's assume that some error was made by one or more scientists in relation to CJD (and it would be astonishing if no one had been in error - that's part of the scientific method). Who do you suppose we should consult in relation to matters of fact for which we cannot obtain first hand evidence ourselves? The Bible, Mystic Meg, gut feeling?[/p][/quote].. actually, it wasn't just 'one or more scientists' who assured the government that there could be no transmission of nvCJD from beef to Homo sapiens. It was more or less the whole scientific community with relevant experience saying this; with the government's Chief Scientific Officer and Chief Veterinary Officer at the forefront. And they were all wrong. The so called mavericks who disputed the consensus received the same ridicule that the much larger percentage of anti-fluoride scientists and dentists are receiving today from the ‘establishment’.[/p][/quote]That's the problem. The "scientific consensus" is a load of scientists agreeing with other scientists simply because they are scientists, without even attempting themselves to falsify the evidence. The mavericks are often those prepared to critically appraise the evidence using the proper scientific method. Stephen J

7:38pm Thu 17 Jan 13

freefinker says...

Stephen J wrote:
freefinker wrote:
cliffwalker wrote:
freefinker wrote:
cliffwalker wrote:
Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER.

In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.
.. and perhaps you would like to comment on the nvCJD debacle, just to balance things up a little.

The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?
I don't know quite what you mean in saying "The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?" but let's assume that some error was made by one or more scientists in relation to CJD (and it would be astonishing if no one had been in error - that's part of the scientific method). Who do you suppose we should consult in relation to matters of fact for which we cannot obtain first hand evidence ourselves? The Bible, Mystic Meg, gut feeling?
.. actually, it wasn't just 'one or more scientists' who assured the government that there could be no transmission of nvCJD from beef to Homo sapiens. It was more or less the whole scientific community with relevant experience saying this; with the government's Chief Scientific Officer and Chief Veterinary Officer at the forefront.

And they were all wrong. The so called mavericks who disputed the consensus received the same ridicule that the much larger percentage of anti-fluoride scientists and dentists are receiving today from the ‘establishment’.
That's the problem. The "scientific consensus" is a load of scientists agreeing with other scientists simply because they are scientists, without even attempting themselves to falsify the evidence. The mavericks are often those prepared to critically appraise the evidence using the proper scientific method.
.. yep, that's my point entirely.

Notice how none of the fluoride supporters want to say anything about the lessons learnt from the nvCJD affair.
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER. In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.[/p][/quote].. and perhaps you would like to comment on the nvCJD debacle, just to balance things up a little. The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?[/p][/quote]I don't know quite what you mean in saying "The scientists got it wrong, didn't they?" but let's assume that some error was made by one or more scientists in relation to CJD (and it would be astonishing if no one had been in error - that's part of the scientific method). Who do you suppose we should consult in relation to matters of fact for which we cannot obtain first hand evidence ourselves? The Bible, Mystic Meg, gut feeling?[/p][/quote].. actually, it wasn't just 'one or more scientists' who assured the government that there could be no transmission of nvCJD from beef to Homo sapiens. It was more or less the whole scientific community with relevant experience saying this; with the government's Chief Scientific Officer and Chief Veterinary Officer at the forefront. And they were all wrong. The so called mavericks who disputed the consensus received the same ridicule that the much larger percentage of anti-fluoride scientists and dentists are receiving today from the ‘establishment’.[/p][/quote]That's the problem. The "scientific consensus" is a load of scientists agreeing with other scientists simply because they are scientists, without even attempting themselves to falsify the evidence. The mavericks are often those prepared to critically appraise the evidence using the proper scientific method.[/p][/quote].. yep, that's my point entirely. Notice how none of the fluoride supporters want to say anything about the lessons learnt from the nvCJD affair. freefinker

8:30pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Linesman says...

st1halo wrote:
Once again people seem to be missing the point on this matter. It doesn't matter whether it is good, bad or has no effect. The point is that a majority of people are against it and so the proposal should be dropped. This typifies this country and the 'We know whats best for you' attitude of those in high places. Just like the European Question, it should be our choice to make.
What evidence have you that a majority of people are against it?

If you are taking posts on this site as evidence, then you are very much mistaken.

Whenever there is something controversial such as fluoridation proposed, the anti-brigade invariably dominate sites like this.

Why?

Because they do not like what is proposed.

The ones that accept it as being sensible, and agree with what is suggested, leave them to get on with it.
[quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: Once again people seem to be missing the point on this matter. It doesn't matter whether it is good, bad or has no effect. The point is that a majority of people are against it and so the proposal should be dropped. This typifies this country and the 'We know whats best for you' attitude of those in high places. Just like the European Question, it should be our choice to make.[/p][/quote]What evidence have you that a majority of people are against it? If you are taking posts on this site as evidence, then you are very much mistaken. Whenever there is something controversial such as fluoridation proposed, the anti-brigade invariably dominate sites like this. Why? Because they do not like what is proposed. The ones that accept it as being sensible, and agree with what is suggested, leave them to get on with it. Linesman

8:37pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Linesman says...

southy wrote:
kingnotail wrote:
business-guru wrote:
southy wrote:
cliffwalker wrote:
Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER.

In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.
These are childhood illess and in kids do not present a major problem, its in adults where the problems are for the small number that don't catch these illess while they was kids
total rubbish. Measels is a killer. 1-in-20 kids that get measels are seriously ill, about 1-in-100 can have long term complications and 1-in-200 will die.
Don't even bother trying mate. This delusional douchebag knows nothing about anything, and from his posts is evidently barely literate.
measels is only might be a killer to 2%, the 2% who can not build up anti-bodys to the illess. and when it do kill its because another illess is caught and the body starts to over heat, more people have died though psoriasis when the body is mostly covered it causes the body to start to over heat a slow cooking
You forgot to mention that it can cause blindness and deafness.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]business-guru[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: Yet another example of scientific evidence being "balanced" by assertions from the opposition. The opinion of Hampshire Against Fluoridation is not equivalent to that of SHA or SCHER. In the case of the MMR "controversy" such false "balancing" led to uneccessary illness for thousands of children and, for some, death.[/p][/quote]These are childhood illess and in kids do not present a major problem, its in adults where the problems are for the small number that don't catch these illess while they was kids[/p][/quote]total rubbish. Measels is a killer. 1-in-20 kids that get measels are seriously ill, about 1-in-100 can have long term complications and 1-in-200 will die.[/p][/quote]Don't even bother trying mate. This delusional douchebag knows nothing about anything, and from his posts is evidently barely literate.[/p][/quote]measels is only might be a killer to 2%, the 2% who can not build up anti-bodys to the illess. and when it do kill its because another illess is caught and the body starts to over heat, more people have died though psoriasis when the body is mostly covered it causes the body to start to over heat a slow cooking[/p][/quote]You forgot to mention that it can cause blindness and deafness. Linesman

9:20pm Thu 17 Jan 13

whats_that_button_for says...

Here's a quick analysis of the comments here so far:

====================
====================
====================
========

Pro-fluoridation commenters:

1. cliffwalker:
a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with MMR. Different issues.
b. Who to consult when in doubt? Try Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridea
lert.org
c. 97% of Europe has chosen fluoride-free water: http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/articles/fl
uoride-facts/

2. St Retford:
a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with climate change (cc). Precautionary principle (pp) is advocated with cc, but you appear not to consider pp valid when fluoridation is the topic? Why?
b. Made fun of challenge to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus. Inconvenient?

3. Chas O'Bursledon:
a. Which area of SW London is he talking about relating to fluoridation?

4. Linesman:
a. Evidence?: 72% of people during the public fluoridation consultation for Southampton voted against fluoridation. Were you one of the 28%?
b. No fluorosis evidence in Midlands? :
http://www.wmaf.org.
uk/index.php?content
=content&parent=3&re
ad=3&keyword=
http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/issues/heal
th/pineal-gland/
http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/issues/fluo
rosis/

5. business-guru: no harmful side effects to fluoride in water? Where did you look? Which part of the info at this site do you disagree with and why? : http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/articles/fl
uoride-facts/

6. kingnotail: Just look at this guy's comments on the Echo site here. He has nothing good to say about anything.

These commenters are FUD merchants - because they promote fluoridation without quoting any evidence for their position. Probably because they have none. Consensus replaces scientific facts now?

FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt:
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Fear,_uncer
tainty_and_doubt

Six pro-fluoridation commenters.

====================
====================
====================
========

Anti-fluoridation commenters :

1. Bagamn
2. freefinker
3. ginger cyclist
4. Taskforce141
5. st1halo
6. southy
7. Subject48
8. BeyondImagination
9. Stephen J
10. myself

Ten anti-fluoridation commenters.

====================
====================
====================
========

The consensus here is against fluoridation, so the pro fluoridation people here are in a minority.
It is also noted that the pro-fluoridation commenters never provide any evidence for their position.
Here's a quick analysis of the comments here so far: ==================== ==================== ==================== ======== Pro-fluoridation commenters: 1. cliffwalker: a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with MMR. Different issues. b. Who to consult when in doubt? Try Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridea lert.org c. 97% of Europe has chosen fluoride-free water: http://www.fluoridea lert.org/articles/fl uoride-facts/ 2. St Retford: a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with climate change (cc). Precautionary principle (pp) is advocated with cc, but you appear not to consider pp valid when fluoridation is the topic? Why? b. Made fun of challenge to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus. Inconvenient? 3. Chas O'Bursledon: a. Which area of SW London is he talking about relating to fluoridation? 4. Linesman: a. Evidence?: 72% of people during the public fluoridation consultation for Southampton voted against fluoridation. Were you one of the 28%? b. No fluorosis evidence in Midlands? : http://www.wmaf.org. uk/index.php?content =content&parent=3&re ad=3&keyword= http://www.fluoridea lert.org/issues/heal th/pineal-gland/ http://www.fluoridea lert.org/issues/fluo rosis/ 5. business-guru: no harmful side effects to fluoride in water? Where did you look? Which part of the info at this site do you disagree with and why? : http://www.fluoridea lert.org/articles/fl uoride-facts/ 6. kingnotail: Just look at this guy's comments on the Echo site here. He has nothing good to say about anything. These commenters are FUD merchants - because they promote fluoridation without quoting any evidence for their position. Probably because they have none. Consensus replaces scientific facts now? FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Fear,_uncer tainty_and_doubt Six pro-fluoridation commenters. ==================== ==================== ==================== ======== Anti-fluoridation commenters : 1. Bagamn 2. freefinker 3. ginger cyclist 4. Taskforce141 5. st1halo 6. southy 7. Subject48 8. BeyondImagination 9. Stephen J 10. myself Ten anti-fluoridation commenters. ==================== ==================== ==================== ======== The consensus here is against fluoridation, so the pro fluoridation people here are in a minority. It is also noted that the pro-fluoridation commenters never provide any evidence for their position. whats_that_button_for

9:24pm Thu 17 Jan 13

whats_that_button_for says...

http://www.guardian.
co.uk/society/2005/j
un/12/medicineandhea
lth.genderissues

Fluoride water 'causes cancer'
Boys at risk from bone tumours, shock research reveals

Fluoride in tap water can cause bone cancer in boys, a disturbing new study indicates, although there is no evidence of a link for girls.

New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma - bone cancer - bet-ween the ages of 10 and 19.

In the UK, fluoride is added to tap water on the advice of bodies such as the British Dental Association. The Department of Health maintains that it is a cost-effective public health measure that helps prevent tooth decay in children.

About 10 per cent of the population, six million people, receive fluoridated water, mainly in the Midlands and north-east, and the government plans to extend this, with Manchester expected to be next. About 170 million Americans live in areas with fluoridated water.

The increased cancer risks, identified in a newly available study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health, were found at fluoride exposure levels common in both the US and Britain. It was the first examination of the link between exposure to the chemical at the critical period of a child's development and the age of onset of bone cancer.

Although osteosarcoma is rare, accounting for only about 3 per cent of childhood cancers, it is especially dangerous. The mortality rate in the first five years is about 50 per cent, and nearly all survivors have limbs amputated, usually legs.

The research has been made available by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a respected Washington-based research organisation. The group reports that it has assembled a 'strong body of peer-reviewed evidence' and has asked that fluoride in tap water be added to the US government's classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans.

'This is a very specific cancer in a defined population of children,' said Richard Wiles, the group's co-founder. 'When you focus in and look for the incidence of tumours, you see the increase.

'We recognise the potential benefits of fluoride to dental health,' added Wiles, 'but I've spent 20 years in public health, trying to protect kids from toxic exposure. Even with DDT, you don't have the consistently strong data that the compound can cause cancer as you now have with fluoride.'

Half of all fluoride ingested is stored in the body, accumulating in calcifying tissue such as teeth and bones and in the pineal gland in the brain, although more than 90 per cent is taken into the bones.

MPs who have recently voted against fluoridation proposals in Parliament include Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and Michael Howard, the Conservative leader.

Anti-fluoride campaigners argue that the whole issue has become highly politically sensitive. If health scares about fluoride were to be recognised in the courts, the litigation, especially in the US, could be expected to run for decades. Consequently, scientists have been inhibited from publicising any adverse findings.

The new evidence only emerged by a circuitous process. It was contained in a Harvard dissertation by Dr Elise Bassin at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. The dissertation, completed in April 2001, obviously had merit because Bassin was awarded her doctorate.

However it has not been published. Environmental organisations were repeatedly denied access to it, and even bodies such as the US National Academy of Sciences could not get hold of a copy. Eventually two researchers from the Fluoride Action Network were allowed to read it in the rare books and special collections room at Harvard medical library.

Bassin told The Observer her work was still going through the peer-review process, and she hopes that it will then be published.

Dr Vyvyan Howard, senior lecturer in toxico-pathology at the University of Liverpool, has studied the new material.

'At these ages the bones of boys are developing rapidly,' he said, 'so if the bones are being put together abnormally because fluoride is altering the bone structure, they're more likely to get cancer. It's biologically plausible, and the epidemiological evidence seems pretty strong - it looks as if there's a definite effect.'

There is at present no understanding as to why males should be affected rather than females.

A Department of Health spokesman said that the latest evaluation of research in the UK had identified no ill effects of fluoride.
http://www.guardian. co.uk/society/2005/j un/12/medicineandhea lth.genderissues Fluoride water 'causes cancer' Boys at risk from bone tumours, shock research reveals Fluoride in tap water can cause bone cancer in boys, a disturbing new study indicates, although there is no evidence of a link for girls. New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma - bone cancer - bet-ween the ages of 10 and 19. In the UK, fluoride is added to tap water on the advice of bodies such as the British Dental Association. The Department of Health maintains that it is a cost-effective public health measure that helps prevent tooth decay in children. About 10 per cent of the population, six million people, receive fluoridated water, mainly in the Midlands and north-east, and the government plans to extend this, with Manchester expected to be next. About 170 million Americans live in areas with fluoridated water. The increased cancer risks, identified in a newly available study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health, were found at fluoride exposure levels common in both the US and Britain. It was the first examination of the link between exposure to the chemical at the critical period of a child's development and the age of onset of bone cancer. Although osteosarcoma is rare, accounting for only about 3 per cent of childhood cancers, it is especially dangerous. The mortality rate in the first five years is about 50 per cent, and nearly all survivors have limbs amputated, usually legs. The research has been made available by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a respected Washington-based research organisation. The group reports that it has assembled a 'strong body of peer-reviewed evidence' and has asked that fluoride in tap water be added to the US government's classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans. 'This is a very specific cancer in a defined population of children,' said Richard Wiles, the group's co-founder. 'When you focus in and look for the incidence of tumours, you see the increase. 'We recognise the potential benefits of fluoride to dental health,' added Wiles, 'but I've spent 20 years in public health, trying to protect kids from toxic exposure. Even with DDT, you don't have the consistently strong data that the compound can cause cancer as you now have with fluoride.' Half of all fluoride ingested is stored in the body, accumulating in calcifying tissue such as teeth and bones and in the pineal gland in the brain, although more than 90 per cent is taken into the bones. MPs who have recently voted against fluoridation proposals in Parliament include Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and Michael Howard, the Conservative leader. Anti-fluoride campaigners argue that the whole issue has become highly politically sensitive. If health scares about fluoride were to be recognised in the courts, the litigation, especially in the US, could be expected to run for decades. Consequently, scientists have been inhibited from publicising any adverse findings. The new evidence only emerged by a circuitous process. It was contained in a Harvard dissertation by Dr Elise Bassin at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. The dissertation, completed in April 2001, obviously had merit because Bassin was awarded her doctorate. However it has not been published. Environmental organisations were repeatedly denied access to it, and even bodies such as the US National Academy of Sciences could not get hold of a copy. Eventually two researchers from the Fluoride Action Network were allowed to read it in the rare books and special collections room at Harvard medical library. Bassin told The Observer her work was still going through the peer-review process, and she hopes that it will then be published. Dr Vyvyan Howard, senior lecturer in toxico-pathology at the University of Liverpool, has studied the new material. 'At these ages the bones of boys are developing rapidly,' he said, 'so if the bones are being put together abnormally because fluoride is altering the bone structure, they're more likely to get cancer. It's biologically plausible, and the epidemiological evidence seems pretty strong - it looks as if there's a definite effect.' There is at present no understanding as to why males should be affected rather than females. A Department of Health spokesman said that the latest evaluation of research in the UK had identified no ill effects of fluoride. whats_that_button_for

9:34pm Thu 17 Jan 13

EvieMa says...

I don't think that we ought to be forced into have chemicals added to the water, however I have to say, Does anyone actually drink tap water anymore? I can't remember the last time I did, we always buy bottled now.
I don't think that we ought to be forced into have chemicals added to the water, however I have to say, Does anyone actually drink tap water anymore? I can't remember the last time I did, we always buy bottled now. EvieMa

9:38pm Thu 17 Jan 13

whats_that_button_for says...

Prof Michael Lennon, chairman of the British Fluoridation Society:

" is not a poison":

http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/england/hamps
hire/7631272.stm

No, of course it's not a poison. (sarcasm off now).


Here's a google search - search and click on the word 'Images' at the top of the page:

http://www.google.co
.uk/search?q=hydrofl
uorosilicic+acid
Prof Michael Lennon, chairman of the British Fluoridation Society: "[Fluoride] is not a poison": http://news.bbc.co.u k/1/hi/england/hamps hire/7631272.stm No, of course it's not a poison. (sarcasm off now). Here's a google search - search and click on the word 'Images' at the top of the page: http://www.google.co .uk/search?q=hydrofl uorosilicic+acid whats_that_button_for

9:47pm Thu 17 Jan 13

whats_that_button_for says...

EvieMa:

If you drink water out of plastic bottles, you may wish to consider that there is some evidence to suggest that BPA (Bisphenol-A) may be leaching out of the plastic bottle and into your drinking water.

Personally, I dislike the taste of chlorine in the water, but one can disguise it with squash, or remove chlorine with a water filter.
EvieMa: If you drink water out of plastic bottles, you may wish to consider that there is some evidence to suggest that BPA (Bisphenol-A) may be leaching out of the plastic bottle and into your drinking water. Personally, I dislike the taste of chlorine in the water, but one can disguise it with squash, or remove chlorine with a water filter. whats_that_button_for

10:00pm Thu 17 Jan 13

whats_that_button_for says...

Here's something scientific for the pro-fluoridation commenters here:

18000 Dead American Babies:

http://www.fluorideg
ate.com/wp-content/u
ploads/2012/12/18000
-dead-American-babie
s1-1.pdf
Here's something scientific for the pro-fluoridation commenters here: 18000 Dead American Babies: http://www.fluorideg ate.com/wp-content/u ploads/2012/12/18000 -dead-American-babie s1-1.pdf whats_that_button_for

10:02pm Thu 17 Jan 13

whats_that_button_for says...

Anyone interested in the subject of water fluoridation may wish to watch the following film:

http://www.fluorideg
ate.com/
Anyone interested in the subject of water fluoridation may wish to watch the following film: http://www.fluorideg ate.com/ whats_that_button_for

10:09pm Thu 17 Jan 13

whats_that_button_for says...

If you get problems with that video then try this, directly from youtube:

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?feature=pla
yer_embedded&v=ws_bb
nfwDC8
If you get problems with that video then try this, directly from youtube: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?feature=pla yer_embedded&v=ws_bb nfwDC8 whats_that_button_for

10:22pm Thu 17 Jan 13

whats_that_button_for says...

Here is the full 1 hour Fluoridegate video for those interested:

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?feature=pla
yer_embedded&v=T_vlw
JPcYW8
Here is the full 1 hour Fluoridegate video for those interested: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?feature=pla yer_embedded&v=T_vlw JPcYW8 whats_that_button_for

12:10am Fri 18 Jan 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

whats_that_button_fo
r
wrote:
Here's a quick analysis of the comments here so far:

====================

====================

====================

========

Pro-fluoridation commenters:

1. cliffwalker:
a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with MMR. Different issues.
b. Who to consult when in doubt? Try Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridea

lert.org
c. 97% of Europe has chosen fluoride-free water: http://www.fluoridea

lert.org/articles/fl

uoride-facts/

2. St Retford:
a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with climate change (cc). Precautionary principle (pp) is advocated with cc, but you appear not to consider pp valid when fluoridation is the topic? Why?
b. Made fun of challenge to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus. Inconvenient?

3. Chas O'Bursledon:
a. Which area of SW London is he talking about relating to fluoridation?

4. Linesman:
a. Evidence?: 72% of people during the public fluoridation consultation for Southampton voted against fluoridation. Were you one of the 28%?
b. No fluorosis evidence in Midlands? :
http://www.wmaf.org.

uk/index.php?content

=content&parent=
3&re
ad=3&keyword=
http://www.fluoridea

lert.org/issues/heal

th/pineal-gland/
http://www.fluoridea

lert.org/issues/fluo

rosis/

5. business-guru: no harmful side effects to fluoride in water? Where did you look? Which part of the info at this site do you disagree with and why? : http://www.fluoridea

lert.org/articles/fl

uoride-facts/

6. kingnotail: Just look at this guy's comments on the Echo site here. He has nothing good to say about anything.

These commenters are FUD merchants - because they promote fluoridation without quoting any evidence for their position. Probably because they have none. Consensus replaces scientific facts now?

FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt:
http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Fear,_uncer

tainty_and_doubt

Six pro-fluoridation commenters.

====================

====================

====================

========

Anti-fluoridation commenters :

1. Bagamn
2. freefinker
3. ginger cyclist
4. Taskforce141
5. st1halo
6. southy
7. Subject48
8. BeyondImagination
9. Stephen J
10. myself

Ten anti-fluoridation commenters.

====================

====================

====================

========

The consensus here is against fluoridation, so the pro fluoridation people here are in a minority.
It is also noted that the pro-fluoridation commenters never provide any evidence for their position.
Thank you, as you have proven, there is a majority of 10 out of 16 people here who are against having a highly toxic chemical waste dumped into our water supply.

If anyone would like to know how and where the fluoride they would be using is produced then look no further than across the water to the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery, it is a waste product from the chimney pollutant wet scrubbers in chemical plants, fosil fuel and biomass burning power plants and factories that remove acidic pollutants, it also removes a lot of other pollutants such as lead, mercury, beryllium and
arsenic which along with it being hexafluorosilicic acid(which as the name suggests contains 6 atoms of fluoride and 1 atom of silicon, silicon is also highly toxic which is why implants are made from very tough bags) makes it illegal to be dumped into the ocean, therefore it is then dumped into drinking water, hexaluorosilicic acid is also recognised as a highly corrosive and toxic acid that is so strong that it is an essential part for refining aluminium from its ore, fluoride and fluoridation chemicals have been used as a base for pesticides in the past and have been registered as toxins since 1972 in the 1972 poisons act and they are to be found in the same category as mercury, arsenic and a highly toxic chemical used in herbicides called Paraquat, the acid and it's equally toxic salts are also used as wood preservatives.
[quote][p][bold]whats_that_button_fo r[/bold] wrote: Here's a quick analysis of the comments here so far: ==================== ==================== ==================== ======== Pro-fluoridation commenters: 1. cliffwalker: a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with MMR. Different issues. b. Who to consult when in doubt? Try Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridea lert.org c. 97% of Europe has chosen fluoride-free water: http://www.fluoridea lert.org/articles/fl uoride-facts/ 2. St Retford: a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with climate change (cc). Precautionary principle (pp) is advocated with cc, but you appear not to consider pp valid when fluoridation is the topic? Why? b. Made fun of challenge to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus. Inconvenient? 3. Chas O'Bursledon: a. Which area of SW London is he talking about relating to fluoridation? 4. Linesman: a. Evidence?: 72% of people during the public fluoridation consultation for Southampton voted against fluoridation. Were you one of the 28%? b. No fluorosis evidence in Midlands? : http://www.wmaf.org. uk/index.php?content =content&parent= 3&re ad=3&keyword= http://www.fluoridea lert.org/issues/heal th/pineal-gland/ http://www.fluoridea lert.org/issues/fluo rosis/ 5. business-guru: no harmful side effects to fluoride in water? Where did you look? Which part of the info at this site do you disagree with and why? : http://www.fluoridea lert.org/articles/fl uoride-facts/ 6. kingnotail: Just look at this guy's comments on the Echo site here. He has nothing good to say about anything. These commenters are FUD merchants - because they promote fluoridation without quoting any evidence for their position. Probably because they have none. Consensus replaces scientific facts now? FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Fear,_uncer tainty_and_doubt Six pro-fluoridation commenters. ==================== ==================== ==================== ======== Anti-fluoridation commenters : 1. Bagamn 2. freefinker 3. ginger cyclist 4. Taskforce141 5. st1halo 6. southy 7. Subject48 8. BeyondImagination 9. Stephen J 10. myself Ten anti-fluoridation commenters. ==================== ==================== ==================== ======== The consensus here is against fluoridation, so the pro fluoridation people here are in a minority. It is also noted that the pro-fluoridation commenters never provide any evidence for their position.[/p][/quote]Thank you, as you have proven, there is a majority of 10 out of 16 people here who are against having a highly toxic chemical waste dumped into our water supply. If anyone would like to know how and where the fluoride they would be using is produced then look no further than across the water to the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery, it is a waste product from the chimney pollutant wet scrubbers in chemical plants, fosil fuel and biomass burning power plants and factories that remove acidic pollutants, it also removes a lot of other pollutants such as lead, mercury, beryllium and arsenic which along with it being hexafluorosilicic acid(which as the name suggests contains 6 atoms of fluoride and 1 atom of silicon, silicon is also highly toxic which is why implants are made from very tough bags) makes it illegal to be dumped into the ocean, therefore it is then dumped into drinking water, hexaluorosilicic acid is also recognised as a highly corrosive and toxic acid that is so strong that it is an essential part for refining aluminium from its ore, fluoride and fluoridation chemicals have been used as a base for pesticides in the past and have been registered as toxins since 1972 in the 1972 poisons act and they are to be found in the same category as mercury, arsenic and a highly toxic chemical used in herbicides called Paraquat, the acid and it's equally toxic salts are also used as wood preservatives. Ginger_cyclist

12:43am Fri 18 Jan 13

St Retford says...

whats_that_button_fo
r
wrote:
Here's a quick analysis of the comments here so far:

====================

====================

====================

========

Pro-fluoridation commenters:

1. cliffwalker:
a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with MMR. Different issues.
b. Who to consult when in doubt? Try Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridea

lert.org
c. 97% of Europe has chosen fluoride-free water: http://www.fluoridea

lert.org/articles/fl

uoride-facts/

2. St Retford:
a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with climate change (cc). Precautionary principle (pp) is advocated with cc, but you appear not to consider pp valid when fluoridation is the topic? Why?
b. Made fun of challenge to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus. Inconvenient?

3. Chas O'Bursledon:
a. Which area of SW London is he talking about relating to fluoridation?

4. Linesman:
a. Evidence?: 72% of people during the public fluoridation consultation for Southampton voted against fluoridation. Were you one of the 28%?
b. No fluorosis evidence in Midlands? :
http://www.wmaf.org.

uk/index.php?content

=content&parent=
3&re
ad=3&keyword=
http://www.fluoridea

lert.org/issues/heal

th/pineal-gland/
http://www.fluoridea

lert.org/issues/fluo

rosis/

5. business-guru: no harmful side effects to fluoride in water? Where did you look? Which part of the info at this site do you disagree with and why? : http://www.fluoridea

lert.org/articles/fl

uoride-facts/

6. kingnotail: Just look at this guy's comments on the Echo site here. He has nothing good to say about anything.

These commenters are FUD merchants - because they promote fluoridation without quoting any evidence for their position. Probably because they have none. Consensus replaces scientific facts now?

FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt:
http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Fear,_uncer

tainty_and_doubt

Six pro-fluoridation commenters.

====================

====================

====================

========

Anti-fluoridation commenters :

1. Bagamn
2. freefinker
3. ginger cyclist
4. Taskforce141
5. st1halo
6. southy
7. Subject48
8. BeyondImagination
9. Stephen J
10. myself

Ten anti-fluoridation commenters.

====================

====================

====================

========

The consensus here is against fluoridation, so the pro fluoridation people here are in a minority.
It is also noted that the pro-fluoridation commenters never provide any evidence for their position.
I don't think I stated whether I was for or against it. I merely urged caution regarding the media's tendency to create a false sense of balance (ie here's what someone for it thinks, here's what someone against it thinks - job done) when the findings of the scientific community are overwhelmingly one-sided on a particular issue.

As far as I can see, the only serious, peer-reviewed evidence on the issue is that fluoridation improves people's teeth. Make your own minds up.
[quote][p][bold]whats_that_button_fo r[/bold] wrote: Here's a quick analysis of the comments here so far: ==================== ==================== ==================== ======== Pro-fluoridation commenters: 1. cliffwalker: a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with MMR. Different issues. b. Who to consult when in doubt? Try Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridea lert.org c. 97% of Europe has chosen fluoride-free water: http://www.fluoridea lert.org/articles/fl uoride-facts/ 2. St Retford: a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with climate change (cc). Precautionary principle (pp) is advocated with cc, but you appear not to consider pp valid when fluoridation is the topic? Why? b. Made fun of challenge to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus. Inconvenient? 3. Chas O'Bursledon: a. Which area of SW London is he talking about relating to fluoridation? 4. Linesman: a. Evidence?: 72% of people during the public fluoridation consultation for Southampton voted against fluoridation. Were you one of the 28%? b. No fluorosis evidence in Midlands? : http://www.wmaf.org. uk/index.php?content =content&parent= 3&re ad=3&keyword= http://www.fluoridea lert.org/issues/heal th/pineal-gland/ http://www.fluoridea lert.org/issues/fluo rosis/ 5. business-guru: no harmful side effects to fluoride in water? Where did you look? Which part of the info at this site do you disagree with and why? : http://www.fluoridea lert.org/articles/fl uoride-facts/ 6. kingnotail: Just look at this guy's comments on the Echo site here. He has nothing good to say about anything. These commenters are FUD merchants - because they promote fluoridation without quoting any evidence for their position. Probably because they have none. Consensus replaces scientific facts now? FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Fear,_uncer tainty_and_doubt Six pro-fluoridation commenters. ==================== ==================== ==================== ======== Anti-fluoridation commenters : 1. Bagamn 2. freefinker 3. ginger cyclist 4. Taskforce141 5. st1halo 6. southy 7. Subject48 8. BeyondImagination 9. Stephen J 10. myself Ten anti-fluoridation commenters. ==================== ==================== ==================== ======== The consensus here is against fluoridation, so the pro fluoridation people here are in a minority. It is also noted that the pro-fluoridation commenters never provide any evidence for their position.[/p][/quote]I don't think I stated whether I was for or against it. I merely urged caution regarding the media's tendency to create a false sense of balance (ie here's what someone for it thinks, here's what someone against it thinks - job done) when the findings of the scientific community are overwhelmingly one-sided on a particular issue. As far as I can see, the only serious, peer-reviewed evidence on the issue is that fluoridation improves people's teeth. Make your own minds up. St Retford

12:53am Fri 18 Jan 13

Shergold says...

Thank you 'whats_that_button_f
or' for showing the ignorant people who think they know better, but did not do any research on this illegal poisonous substance!!

Industrial waste Fluoride does not conform to the 1967 Medicines act at all.

Industrial waste Fluoride has never been given any form of medical licence at all.

Industrial waste Fluoride has never had any form of long term testing.

How can this factory waste EVER be of any use to your body??

natural calcium fluoride does not have these problems and there have been studies to prove it.

There was a story about a 3yr old that died in the dentist office in New York c 1980, ' cos he swallowed the Industrial waste fluoride mouth rinse and forgot that the dentist said' dont swallow'.!!

Mums in Kent sued Colgate c2009 as they had done a good parenting job of getting their kids to brush their teeth and they ended up with fluorosis!!!

There were families in Oregon that suffered with industrial fluoride fumes dreadfully, as local council thought it was ok to just start up a fertilizer factory next to them!
There was a drama made about it, and they did win in the end. Kids were in pain through just trying to move their joints it was like serious arthritis symptoms.

WHO is still that stupid to believe that industrial waste fluoride is ok??
Thank you 'whats_that_button_f or' for showing the ignorant people who think they know better, but did not do any research on this illegal poisonous substance!! Industrial waste Fluoride does not conform to the 1967 Medicines act at all. Industrial waste Fluoride has never been given any form of medical licence at all. Industrial waste Fluoride has never had any form of long term testing. How can this factory waste EVER be of any use to your body?? natural calcium fluoride does not have these problems and there have been studies to prove it. There was a story about a 3yr old that died in the dentist office in New York c 1980, ' cos he swallowed the Industrial waste fluoride mouth rinse and forgot that the dentist said' dont swallow'.!! Mums in Kent sued Colgate c2009 as they had done a good parenting job of getting their kids to brush their teeth and they ended up with fluorosis!!! There were families in Oregon that suffered with industrial fluoride fumes dreadfully, as local council thought it was ok to just start up a fertilizer factory next to them! There was a drama made about it, and they did win in the end. Kids were in pain through just trying to move their joints it was like serious arthritis symptoms. WHO is still that stupid to believe that industrial waste fluoride is ok?? Shergold

1:37am Fri 18 Jan 13

saintinpattaya says...

I am anti too. Add me to your list please. Very good posts above with links to where the information came from. Not just what someone thinks personally. And how can any body blindly trust their government like some do? And the scientists who are usually pro on a controversial issue are ussally receiving funding to do their studies from companies that filter results to show they are right. Tabacco companies done this for year's using top doctors to tell the world smoking doesn't cause cancer.
I am anti too. Add me to your list please. Very good posts above with links to where the information came from. Not just what someone thinks personally. And how can any body blindly trust their government like some do? And the scientists who are usually pro on a controversial issue are ussally receiving funding to do their studies from companies that filter results to show they are right. Tabacco companies done this for year's using top doctors to tell the world smoking doesn't cause cancer. saintinpattaya

7:35am Fri 18 Jan 13

Joe8135 says...

The whole idea that science supports fluoridation is a myth. The reality is that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly calls the practice into question. Fluoridation has always been all about politics, economics, and propaganda, not science. Of course fluoridationists claim the backing of science, because how else could they sell the idea of dumping huge amounts of toxic industrial silicofluoride waste into public water supplies? I'm not aware of any real scientists who support fluoridation. There may be a few, but fluoridationists are overwhelmingly administrators, bureaucrats, and politicians. There are also some dentists who are ardent supporters, having been indoctrinated with pro-fluoridation propaganda, but they are neither independent nor qualified to evaluate adverse health effects. 14 Nobel prize winners in either Medicine or Chemistry have publicly opposed fluoridation, and they are much better qualified to comment than ignorant fluoridationists, as are scientists from the US Environmental Protection Agency who have opposed fluoridation, and many other scientists.

Fluoridation and the reckless burning of fossil fuels are both examples of grossly irresponsible pollution carried out to further corporate interests at the expense of the public, and in defiance of the best scientific knowledge and the precautionary principle. When a dentist supports silicofluoride pollution, it is similar to a geologist supporting carbon pollution, because they are both speaking outside of their area of expertise. And not only does science not support the idea that fluoridation is safe, it also does not support the idea that it is effective. The best studies have shown that fluoridation has little or no beneficial effect on the rate of dental decay, or is even harmful in that regard. When Japan and several European countries discontinued fluoridation, the rates of dental decay did not rise, they fell rapidly.

http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/researchers
/professionals-state
ment/

http://www.nofluorid
e.com/presentations/
Nobel%20Prize%20Winn
ers.pdf

http://www.fluorider
esearch.org/
The whole idea that science supports fluoridation is a myth. The reality is that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly calls the practice into question. Fluoridation has always been all about politics, economics, and propaganda, not science. Of course fluoridationists claim the backing of science, because how else could they sell the idea of dumping huge amounts of toxic industrial silicofluoride waste into public water supplies? I'm not aware of any real scientists who support fluoridation. There may be a few, but fluoridationists are overwhelmingly administrators, bureaucrats, and politicians. There are also some dentists who are ardent supporters, having been indoctrinated with pro-fluoridation propaganda, but they are neither independent nor qualified to evaluate adverse health effects. 14 Nobel prize winners in either Medicine or Chemistry have publicly opposed fluoridation, and they are much better qualified to comment than ignorant fluoridationists, as are scientists from the US Environmental Protection Agency who have opposed fluoridation, and many other scientists. Fluoridation and the reckless burning of fossil fuels are both examples of grossly irresponsible pollution carried out to further corporate interests at the expense of the public, and in defiance of the best scientific knowledge and the precautionary principle. When a dentist supports silicofluoride pollution, it is similar to a geologist supporting carbon pollution, because they are both speaking outside of their area of expertise. And not only does science not support the idea that fluoridation is safe, it also does not support the idea that it is effective. The best studies have shown that fluoridation has little or no beneficial effect on the rate of dental decay, or is even harmful in that regard. When Japan and several European countries discontinued fluoridation, the rates of dental decay did not rise, they fell rapidly. http://www.fluoridea lert.org/researchers /professionals-state ment/ http://www.nofluorid e.com/presentations/ Nobel%20Prize%20Winn ers.pdf http://www.fluorider esearch.org/ Joe8135

7:35am Fri 18 Jan 13

FoysCornerBoy says...

whats_that_button_fo
r
wrote:
Here's a quick analysis of the comments here so far:

====================

====================

====================

========

Pro-fluoridation commenters:

1. cliffwalker:
a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with MMR. Different issues.
b. Who to consult when in doubt? Try Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridea

lert.org
c. 97% of Europe has chosen fluoride-free water: http://www.fluoridea

lert.org/articles/fl

uoride-facts/

2. St Retford:
a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with climate change (cc). Precautionary principle (pp) is advocated with cc, but you appear not to consider pp valid when fluoridation is the topic? Why?
b. Made fun of challenge to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus. Inconvenient?

3. Chas O'Bursledon:
a. Which area of SW London is he talking about relating to fluoridation?

4. Linesman:
a. Evidence?: 72% of people during the public fluoridation consultation for Southampton voted against fluoridation. Were you one of the 28%?
b. No fluorosis evidence in Midlands? :
http://www.wmaf.org.

uk/index.php?content

=content&parent=
3&re
ad=3&keyword=
http://www.fluoridea

lert.org/issues/heal

th/pineal-gland/
http://www.fluoridea

lert.org/issues/fluo

rosis/

5. business-guru: no harmful side effects to fluoride in water? Where did you look? Which part of the info at this site do you disagree with and why? : http://www.fluoridea

lert.org/articles/fl

uoride-facts/

6. kingnotail: Just look at this guy's comments on the Echo site here. He has nothing good to say about anything.

These commenters are FUD merchants - because they promote fluoridation without quoting any evidence for their position. Probably because they have none. Consensus replaces scientific facts now?

FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt:
http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Fear,_uncer

tainty_and_doubt

Six pro-fluoridation commenters.

====================

====================

====================

========

Anti-fluoridation commenters :

1. Bagamn
2. freefinker
3. ginger cyclist
4. Taskforce141
5. st1halo
6. southy
7. Subject48
8. BeyondImagination
9. Stephen J
10. myself

Ten anti-fluoridation commenters.

====================

====================

====================

========

The consensus here is against fluoridation, so the pro fluoridation people here are in a minority.
It is also noted that the pro-fluoridation commenters never provide any evidence for their position.
I try and approach this from a rational perspective and following the discussions here it seems clear that a few people with a lot to say don't.

If you exclude those posters who use CAPITALS, conspiracy theorists (e.g. those who believe that fluoride is a global plot by communists/ elders of Zion/ freemasons/ jesuits/ bilderberg group/ David Icke's lizards etc.) and over long pieces the balance between pro and anti is more even.

I suspect that the majority of the public (often ill-informed and confused) are opposed. The more people look into the facts and apply reason the less likely they are to oppose.

Some years ago a postal survey was undertaken by the authorities and 10,000 were returned. There was no scientific basis for the results of this snap-shot exercise as several respondents (a) did not reside in the area affected and (b) completed more than one form. The claim, therefore, that 70% of the public are opposed is, therefore, totally invalid.

By all means lets have a referendum (cost = £350,000+) but which public authority - in these cash-strapped times - should pay for this and what is the question to be put?

" Do you agree with proposals of the local NHS for safe environmental measures to protect our children's dental health?"
[quote][p][bold]whats_that_button_fo r[/bold] wrote: Here's a quick analysis of the comments here so far: ==================== ==================== ==================== ======== Pro-fluoridation commenters: 1. cliffwalker: a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with MMR. Different issues. b. Who to consult when in doubt? Try Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridea lert.org c. 97% of Europe has chosen fluoride-free water: http://www.fluoridea lert.org/articles/fl uoride-facts/ 2. St Retford: a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with climate change (cc). Precautionary principle (pp) is advocated with cc, but you appear not to consider pp valid when fluoridation is the topic? Why? b. Made fun of challenge to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus. Inconvenient? 3. Chas O'Bursledon: a. Which area of SW London is he talking about relating to fluoridation? 4. Linesman: a. Evidence?: 72% of people during the public fluoridation consultation for Southampton voted against fluoridation. Were you one of the 28%? b. No fluorosis evidence in Midlands? : http://www.wmaf.org. uk/index.php?content =content&parent= 3&re ad=3&keyword= http://www.fluoridea lert.org/issues/heal th/pineal-gland/ http://www.fluoridea lert.org/issues/fluo rosis/ 5. business-guru: no harmful side effects to fluoride in water? Where did you look? Which part of the info at this site do you disagree with and why? : http://www.fluoridea lert.org/articles/fl uoride-facts/ 6. kingnotail: Just look at this guy's comments on the Echo site here. He has nothing good to say about anything. These commenters are FUD merchants - because they promote fluoridation without quoting any evidence for their position. Probably because they have none. Consensus replaces scientific facts now? FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Fear,_uncer tainty_and_doubt Six pro-fluoridation commenters. ==================== ==================== ==================== ======== Anti-fluoridation commenters : 1. Bagamn 2. freefinker 3. ginger cyclist 4. Taskforce141 5. st1halo 6. southy 7. Subject48 8. BeyondImagination 9. Stephen J 10. myself Ten anti-fluoridation commenters. ==================== ==================== ==================== ======== The consensus here is against fluoridation, so the pro fluoridation people here are in a minority. It is also noted that the pro-fluoridation commenters never provide any evidence for their position.[/p][/quote]I try and approach this from a rational perspective and following the discussions here it seems clear that a few people with a lot to say don't. If you exclude those posters who use CAPITALS, conspiracy theorists (e.g. those who believe that fluoride is a global plot by communists/ elders of Zion/ freemasons/ jesuits/ bilderberg group/ David Icke's lizards etc.) and over long pieces the balance between pro and anti is more even. I suspect that the majority of the public (often ill-informed and confused) are opposed. The more people look into the facts and apply reason the less likely they are to oppose. Some years ago a postal survey was undertaken by the authorities and 10,000 were returned. There was no scientific basis for the results of this snap-shot exercise as several respondents (a) did not reside in the area affected and (b) completed more than one form. The claim, therefore, that 70% of the public are opposed is, therefore, totally invalid. By all means lets have a referendum (cost = £350,000+) but which public authority - in these cash-strapped times - should pay for this and what is the question to be put? " Do you agree with proposals of the local NHS for safe environmental measures to protect our children's dental health?" FoysCornerBoy

8:37am Fri 18 Jan 13

Joe8135 says...

FoysCornerBoy, you accuse other people of being "ill-informed and confused" but it seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black to me. Your proposed referendum question "Do you agree with proposals of the local NHS for safe environmental measures to protect our children's dental health?" is laughable. It is totally biased, and doesn't even mention what it actually is that is being voted on.
FoysCornerBoy, you accuse other people of being "ill-informed and confused" but it seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black to me. Your proposed referendum question "Do you agree with proposals of the local NHS for safe environmental measures to protect our children's dental health?" is laughable. It is totally biased, and doesn't even mention what it actually is that is being voted on. Joe8135

10:02am Fri 18 Jan 13

Linesman says...

whats_that_button_fo
r
wrote:
Here's a quick analysis of the comments here so far:

====================

====================

====================

========

Pro-fluoridation commenters:

1. cliffwalker:
a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with MMR. Different issues.
b. Who to consult when in doubt? Try Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridea

lert.org
c. 97% of Europe has chosen fluoride-free water: http://www.fluoridea

lert.org/articles/fl

uoride-facts/

2. St Retford:
a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with climate change (cc). Precautionary principle (pp) is advocated with cc, but you appear not to consider pp valid when fluoridation is the topic? Why?
b. Made fun of challenge to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus. Inconvenient?

3. Chas O'Bursledon:
a. Which area of SW London is he talking about relating to fluoridation?

4. Linesman:
a. Evidence?: 72% of people during the public fluoridation consultation for Southampton voted against fluoridation. Were you one of the 28%?
b. No fluorosis evidence in Midlands? :
http://www.wmaf.org.

uk/index.php?content

=content&parent=
3&re
ad=3&keyword=
http://www.fluoridea

lert.org/issues/heal

th/pineal-gland/
http://www.fluoridea

lert.org/issues/fluo

rosis/

5. business-guru: no harmful side effects to fluoride in water? Where did you look? Which part of the info at this site do you disagree with and why? : http://www.fluoridea

lert.org/articles/fl

uoride-facts/

6. kingnotail: Just look at this guy's comments on the Echo site here. He has nothing good to say about anything.

These commenters are FUD merchants - because they promote fluoridation without quoting any evidence for their position. Probably because they have none. Consensus replaces scientific facts now?

FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt:
http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Fear,_uncer

tainty_and_doubt

Six pro-fluoridation commenters.

====================

====================

====================

========

Anti-fluoridation commenters :

1. Bagamn
2. freefinker
3. ginger cyclist
4. Taskforce141
5. st1halo
6. southy
7. Subject48
8. BeyondImagination
9. Stephen J
10. myself

Ten anti-fluoridation commenters.

====================

====================

====================

========

The consensus here is against fluoridation, so the pro fluoridation people here are in a minority.
It is also noted that the pro-fluoridation commenters never provide any evidence for their position.
Reference No4.

How many people participated in the consultation, and how did that compare with the number of housholds that would be receiving fluoridated water?

As I have said on many occasions, as with any proposed changes, it is the anti-faction that is most vocal. The 'stick in the muds' cannot accept change. If someone had invented the wheel now, there would be an 'anti-wheel' group to fight the change.
[quote][p][bold]whats_that_button_fo r[/bold] wrote: Here's a quick analysis of the comments here so far: ==================== ==================== ==================== ======== Pro-fluoridation commenters: 1. cliffwalker: a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with MMR. Different issues. b. Who to consult when in doubt? Try Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridea lert.org c. 97% of Europe has chosen fluoride-free water: http://www.fluoridea lert.org/articles/fl uoride-facts/ 2. St Retford: a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with climate change (cc). Precautionary principle (pp) is advocated with cc, but you appear not to consider pp valid when fluoridation is the topic? Why? b. Made fun of challenge to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus. Inconvenient? 3. Chas O'Bursledon: a. Which area of SW London is he talking about relating to fluoridation? 4. Linesman: a. Evidence?: 72% of people during the public fluoridation consultation for Southampton voted against fluoridation. Were you one of the 28%? b. No fluorosis evidence in Midlands? : http://www.wmaf.org. uk/index.php?content =content&parent= 3&re ad=3&keyword= http://www.fluoridea lert.org/issues/heal th/pineal-gland/ http://www.fluoridea lert.org/issues/fluo rosis/ 5. business-guru: no harmful side effects to fluoride in water? Where did you look? Which part of the info at this site do you disagree with and why? : http://www.fluoridea lert.org/articles/fl uoride-facts/ 6. kingnotail: Just look at this guy's comments on the Echo site here. He has nothing good to say about anything. These commenters are FUD merchants - because they promote fluoridation without quoting any evidence for their position. Probably because they have none. Consensus replaces scientific facts now? FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Fear,_uncer tainty_and_doubt Six pro-fluoridation commenters. ==================== ==================== ==================== ======== Anti-fluoridation commenters : 1. Bagamn 2. freefinker 3. ginger cyclist 4. Taskforce141 5. st1halo 6. southy 7. Subject48 8. BeyondImagination 9. Stephen J 10. myself Ten anti-fluoridation commenters. ==================== ==================== ==================== ======== The consensus here is against fluoridation, so the pro fluoridation people here are in a minority. It is also noted that the pro-fluoridation commenters never provide any evidence for their position.[/p][/quote]Reference No4. How many people participated in the consultation, and how did that compare with the number of housholds that would be receiving fluoridated water? As I have said on many occasions, as with any proposed changes, it is the anti-faction that is most vocal. The 'stick in the muds' cannot accept change. If someone had invented the wheel now, there would be an 'anti-wheel' group to fight the change. Linesman

10:12am Fri 18 Jan 13

Joe8135 says...

Linesman, there are many people living in fluoridated areas who would be very happy to "accept change", and I'm one of them. There is nothing advanced about fluoridation. It's the most primitive method imaginable for delivering a medicine, and a relic of the 1940s.
Linesman, there are many people living in fluoridated areas who would be very happy to "accept change", and I'm one of them. There is nothing advanced about fluoridation. It's the most primitive method imaginable for delivering a medicine, and a relic of the 1940s. Joe8135

10:13am Fri 18 Jan 13

Linesman says...

whats_that_button_fo
r
wrote:
http://www.guardian.

co.uk/society/2005/j

un/12/medicineandhea

lth.genderissues

Fluoride water 'causes cancer'
Boys at risk from bone tumours, shock research reveals

Fluoride in tap water can cause bone cancer in boys, a disturbing new study indicates, although there is no evidence of a link for girls.

New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma - bone cancer - bet-ween the ages of 10 and 19.

In the UK, fluoride is added to tap water on the advice of bodies such as the British Dental Association. The Department of Health maintains that it is a cost-effective public health measure that helps prevent tooth decay in children.

About 10 per cent of the population, six million people, receive fluoridated water, mainly in the Midlands and north-east, and the government plans to extend this, with Manchester expected to be next. About 170 million Americans live in areas with fluoridated water.

The increased cancer risks, identified in a newly available study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health, were found at fluoride exposure levels common in both the US and Britain. It was the first examination of the link between exposure to the chemical at the critical period of a child's development and the age of onset of bone cancer.

Although osteosarcoma is rare, accounting for only about 3 per cent of childhood cancers, it is especially dangerous. The mortality rate in the first five years is about 50 per cent, and nearly all survivors have limbs amputated, usually legs.

The research has been made available by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a respected Washington-based research organisation. The group reports that it has assembled a 'strong body of peer-reviewed evidence' and has asked that fluoride in tap water be added to the US government's classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans.

'This is a very specific cancer in a defined population of children,' said Richard Wiles, the group's co-founder. 'When you focus in and look for the incidence of tumours, you see the increase.

'We recognise the potential benefits of fluoride to dental health,' added Wiles, 'but I've spent 20 years in public health, trying to protect kids from toxic exposure. Even with DDT, you don't have the consistently strong data that the compound can cause cancer as you now have with fluoride.'

Half of all fluoride ingested is stored in the body, accumulating in calcifying tissue such as teeth and bones and in the pineal gland in the brain, although more than 90 per cent is taken into the bones.

MPs who have recently voted against fluoridation proposals in Parliament include Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and Michael Howard, the Conservative leader.

Anti-fluoride campaigners argue that the whole issue has become highly politically sensitive. If health scares about fluoride were to be recognised in the courts, the litigation, especially in the US, could be expected to run for decades. Consequently, scientists have been inhibited from publicising any adverse findings.

The new evidence only emerged by a circuitous process. It was contained in a Harvard dissertation by Dr Elise Bassin at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. The dissertation, completed in April 2001, obviously had merit because Bassin was awarded her doctorate.

However it has not been published. Environmental organisations were repeatedly denied access to it, and even bodies such as the US National Academy of Sciences could not get hold of a copy. Eventually two researchers from the Fluoride Action Network were allowed to read it in the rare books and special collections room at Harvard medical library.

Bassin told The Observer her work was still going through the peer-review process, and she hopes that it will then be published.

Dr Vyvyan Howard, senior lecturer in toxico-pathology at the University of Liverpool, has studied the new material.

'At these ages the bones of boys are developing rapidly,' he said, 'so if the bones are being put together abnormally because fluoride is altering the bone structure, they're more likely to get cancer. It's biologically plausible, and the epidemiological evidence seems pretty strong - it looks as if there's a definite effect.'

There is at present no understanding as to why males should be affected rather than females.

A Department of Health spokesman said that the latest evaluation of research in the UK had identified no ill effects of fluoride.
Very interesting theories, but how does it compare with facts?

Have males in the Midlands, who have been in a fluoridated area for more than half a century, shown these ill effects?

What study has been done in that area?

Just because studies have been done in the United States, does not mean that the correct conclusions have been reached. I seem to recall that there was research done that proved that smoking was beneficial to your health.

The Midlands is not a Laboratory full of scientists, it is living proof that fluoride is not the monster that some would have us believe.
[quote][p][bold]whats_that_button_fo r[/bold] wrote: http://www.guardian. co.uk/society/2005/j un/12/medicineandhea lth.genderissues Fluoride water 'causes cancer' Boys at risk from bone tumours, shock research reveals Fluoride in tap water can cause bone cancer in boys, a disturbing new study indicates, although there is no evidence of a link for girls. New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma - bone cancer - bet-ween the ages of 10 and 19. In the UK, fluoride is added to tap water on the advice of bodies such as the British Dental Association. The Department of Health maintains that it is a cost-effective public health measure that helps prevent tooth decay in children. About 10 per cent of the population, six million people, receive fluoridated water, mainly in the Midlands and north-east, and the government plans to extend this, with Manchester expected to be next. About 170 million Americans live in areas with fluoridated water. The increased cancer risks, identified in a newly available study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health, were found at fluoride exposure levels common in both the US and Britain. It was the first examination of the link between exposure to the chemical at the critical period of a child's development and the age of onset of bone cancer. Although osteosarcoma is rare, accounting for only about 3 per cent of childhood cancers, it is especially dangerous. The mortality rate in the first five years is about 50 per cent, and nearly all survivors have limbs amputated, usually legs. The research has been made available by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a respected Washington-based research organisation. The group reports that it has assembled a 'strong body of peer-reviewed evidence' and has asked that fluoride in tap water be added to the US government's classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans. 'This is a very specific cancer in a defined population of children,' said Richard Wiles, the group's co-founder. 'When you focus in and look for the incidence of tumours, you see the increase. 'We recognise the potential benefits of fluoride to dental health,' added Wiles, 'but I've spent 20 years in public health, trying to protect kids from toxic exposure. Even with DDT, you don't have the consistently strong data that the compound can cause cancer as you now have with fluoride.' Half of all fluoride ingested is stored in the body, accumulating in calcifying tissue such as teeth and bones and in the pineal gland in the brain, although more than 90 per cent is taken into the bones. MPs who have recently voted against fluoridation proposals in Parliament include Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and Michael Howard, the Conservative leader. Anti-fluoride campaigners argue that the whole issue has become highly politically sensitive. If health scares about fluoride were to be recognised in the courts, the litigation, especially in the US, could be expected to run for decades. Consequently, scientists have been inhibited from publicising any adverse findings. The new evidence only emerged by a circuitous process. It was contained in a Harvard dissertation by Dr Elise Bassin at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. The dissertation, completed in April 2001, obviously had merit because Bassin was awarded her doctorate. However it has not been published. Environmental organisations were repeatedly denied access to it, and even bodies such as the US National Academy of Sciences could not get hold of a copy. Eventually two researchers from the Fluoride Action Network were allowed to read it in the rare books and special collections room at Harvard medical library. Bassin told The Observer her work was still going through the peer-review process, and she hopes that it will then be published. Dr Vyvyan Howard, senior lecturer in toxico-pathology at the University of Liverpool, has studied the new material. 'At these ages the bones of boys are developing rapidly,' he said, 'so if the bones are being put together abnormally because fluoride is altering the bone structure, they're more likely to get cancer. It's biologically plausible, and the epidemiological evidence seems pretty strong - it looks as if there's a definite effect.' There is at present no understanding as to why males should be affected rather than females. A Department of Health spokesman said that the latest evaluation of research in the UK had identified no ill effects of fluoride.[/p][/quote]Very interesting theories, but how does it compare with facts? Have males in the Midlands, who have been in a fluoridated area for more than half a century, shown these ill effects? What study has been done in that area? Just because studies have been done in the United States, does not mean that the correct conclusions have been reached. I seem to recall that there was research done that proved that smoking was beneficial to your health. The Midlands is not a Laboratory full of scientists, it is living proof that fluoride is not the monster that some would have us believe. Linesman

10:23am Fri 18 Jan 13

Linesman says...

Joe8135 wrote:
Linesman, there are many people living in fluoridated areas who would be very happy to "accept change", and I'm one of them. There is nothing advanced about fluoridation. It's the most primitive method imaginable for delivering a medicine, and a relic of the 1940s.
You do not state in which area you live, or how long the water has been fluoridated.

If that is the case Joe, what evidence is there in your area to support the claims made on here that it increases the incidence of bone tumors in young boys?

Is there a higher incidence of discoloured teeth in your area?

If the answer to both questions is 'YES'. Has this been brought to the attention of your local health authority, and if it has not, when do you intend to inform them?
[quote][p][bold]Joe8135[/bold] wrote: Linesman, there are many people living in fluoridated areas who would be very happy to "accept change", and I'm one of them. There is nothing advanced about fluoridation. It's the most primitive method imaginable for delivering a medicine, and a relic of the 1940s.[/p][/quote]You do not state in which area you live, or how long the water has been fluoridated. If that is the case Joe, what evidence is there in your area to support the claims made on here that it increases the incidence of bone tumors in young boys? Is there a higher incidence of discoloured teeth in your area? If the answer to both questions is 'YES'. Has this been brought to the attention of your local health authority, and if it has not, when do you intend to inform them? Linesman

10:41am Fri 18 Jan 13

southy says...

Heres the thing with adding fluorid to the water, all waters are all ready have fluorid mix in with it, in its natural form locally its at the level where according to the experts at SHA should be helping people teeth but its not, people teeth are bad because of other reasons and that is mainly how you personally look after them.
What we do not need is this industral waste fluoride being added to the water just because the industary will not pay out the full amount of the cost to dispose of it the right way.
Heres the thing with adding fluorid to the water, all waters are all ready have fluorid mix in with it, in its natural form locally its at the level where according to the experts at SHA should be helping people teeth but its not, people teeth are bad because of other reasons and that is mainly how you personally look after them. What we do not need is this industral waste fluoride being added to the water just because the industary will not pay out the full amount of the cost to dispose of it the right way. southy

10:43am Fri 18 Jan 13

beaucarrel says...

No one knows exactly what the long term effect water fluoridation has because there is nothing in place to look for such things, because it would defeat their objective.

Professor Susheela from India is the only nationally funded scientist charged with studying the effects which fluoride has on people. I went to her lectures when she came to england and I studied her findings.

She concluded that there are no safe levels of fluoride, she also concluded that fluoride damages teeth, and is stored in the bones. It also destroys the cilia of the stomach lining which leads to malnutrition just to mention a few of her findings.

The UKs own York report after removing many pieces of evidence which showed fluoride to be harmful, still found it to be niether safe nor efficious and did indeed cause fluorosis.

Fluoride is used in many mind altering drugs, it is present in tea and other enviromental sources. The truth is there is no way of limiting the intake of fluoride to keep it below 1pmm a figure which Professor Susheela says is still harmfull.

Bad teeth are preventable, and it is the sugar industry which should be taxed for the damage it causes, but these companies fund political bodies, so they create a new industry called fluoridation to make money, sedate the nation, and dispose of highly toxic chemical waste through the systems of our vunerable children.

How moronic and victorian is this ? how morally wrong is it ? I suggest everyone installs a reverse osmosis system and take the costs out of their water bills, if all do it then they will have to make changes.
No one knows exactly what the long term effect water fluoridation has because there is nothing in place to look for such things, because it would defeat their objective. Professor Susheela from India is the only nationally funded scientist charged with studying the effects which fluoride has on people. I went to her lectures when she came to england and I studied her findings. She concluded that there are no safe levels of fluoride, she also concluded that fluoride damages teeth, and is stored in the bones. It also destroys the cilia of the stomach lining which leads to malnutrition just to mention a few of her findings. The UKs own York report after removing many pieces of evidence which showed fluoride to be harmful, still found it to be niether safe nor efficious and did indeed cause fluorosis. Fluoride is used in many mind altering drugs, it is present in tea and other enviromental sources. The truth is there is no way of limiting the intake of fluoride to keep it below 1pmm a figure which Professor Susheela says is still harmfull. Bad teeth are preventable, and it is the sugar industry which should be taxed for the damage it causes, but these companies fund political bodies, so they create a new industry called fluoridation to make money, sedate the nation, and dispose of highly toxic chemical waste through the systems of our vunerable children. How moronic and victorian is this ? how morally wrong is it ? I suggest everyone installs a reverse osmosis system and take the costs out of their water bills, if all do it then they will have to make changes. beaucarrel

2:46pm Fri 18 Jan 13

peter sowerby says...

Everything SHA touches seems to turn to s**te including the local hospitals. I dont mind them trying to poison me in the water supply, but not children or babys who cannot defend themselves from their arrogant stupidity.I hope they take their fat pay cheques and golden handshakes, and get out of the city as quickly as their little legs will take them.Ps And take the management of the SGH with them, as they are also just as dangerous and not fit for purpose.
Everything SHA touches seems to turn to s**te including the local hospitals. I dont mind them trying to poison me in the water supply, but not children or babys who cannot defend themselves from their arrogant stupidity.I hope they take their fat pay cheques and golden handshakes, and get out of the city as quickly as their little legs will take them.Ps And take the management of the SGH with them, as they are also just as dangerous and not fit for purpose. peter sowerby

4:47pm Fri 18 Jan 13

beiroot says...

freefinker wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
southy wrote:
likewatchingbrazil wrote: no one wants it apart from the water company to help keep it's pipes clean. yet again the customer has no say
The water companys do not want it also, apart from it will damage pipes over the long run, if some thing go's wrong they are libel and SHA are not
It will damage pipes due to the accelerated leaching effect that fluoride has when added to water, it is also another thing that will make people ill through lead and copper poisoning if they live in old houses with lead pipes outside.
.. in our hard water zone down here in south Hampshire, the build up of 'scale' in lead and copper pipes will prevent the leaching you mention.
How does Flouride react when it comes into contact with Calcium
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]likewatchingbrazil[/bold] wrote: no one wants it apart from the water company to help keep it's pipes clean. yet again the customer has no say[/p][/quote]The water companys do not want it also, apart from it will damage pipes over the long run, if some thing go's wrong they are libel and SHA are not[/p][/quote]It will damage pipes due to the accelerated leaching effect that fluoride has when added to water, it is also another thing that will make people ill through lead and copper poisoning if they live in old houses with lead pipes outside.[/p][/quote].. in our hard water zone down here in south Hampshire, the build up of 'scale' in lead and copper pipes will prevent the leaching you mention.[/p][/quote]How does Flouride react when it comes into contact with Calcium beiroot

4:57pm Fri 18 Jan 13

Linesman says...

beaucarrel wrote:
No one knows exactly what the long term effect water fluoridation has because there is nothing in place to look for such things, because it would defeat their objective.

Professor Susheela from India is the only nationally funded scientist charged with studying the effects which fluoride has on people. I went to her lectures when she came to england and I studied her findings.

She concluded that there are no safe levels of fluoride, she also concluded that fluoride damages teeth, and is stored in the bones. It also destroys the cilia of the stomach lining which leads to malnutrition just to mention a few of her findings.

The UKs own York report after removing many pieces of evidence which showed fluoride to be harmful, still found it to be niether safe nor efficious and did indeed cause fluorosis.

Fluoride is used in many mind altering drugs, it is present in tea and other enviromental sources. The truth is there is no way of limiting the intake of fluoride to keep it below 1pmm a figure which Professor Susheela says is still harmfull.

Bad teeth are preventable, and it is the sugar industry which should be taxed for the damage it causes, but these companies fund political bodies, so they create a new industry called fluoridation to make money, sedate the nation, and dispose of highly toxic chemical waste through the systems of our vunerable children.

How moronic and victorian is this ? how morally wrong is it ? I suggest everyone installs a reverse osmosis system and take the costs out of their water bills, if all do it then they will have to make changes.
Why have these detrimental effects shown up in the Midlands where the water supply has been fluoridated for more than half a century?
[quote][p][bold]beaucarrel[/bold] wrote: No one knows exactly what the long term effect water fluoridation has because there is nothing in place to look for such things, because it would defeat their objective. Professor Susheela from India is the only nationally funded scientist charged with studying the effects which fluoride has on people. I went to her lectures when she came to england and I studied her findings. She concluded that there are no safe levels of fluoride, she also concluded that fluoride damages teeth, and is stored in the bones. It also destroys the cilia of the stomach lining which leads to malnutrition just to mention a few of her findings. The UKs own York report after removing many pieces of evidence which showed fluoride to be harmful, still found it to be niether safe nor efficious and did indeed cause fluorosis. Fluoride is used in many mind altering drugs, it is present in tea and other enviromental sources. The truth is there is no way of limiting the intake of fluoride to keep it below 1pmm a figure which Professor Susheela says is still harmfull. Bad teeth are preventable, and it is the sugar industry which should be taxed for the damage it causes, but these companies fund political bodies, so they create a new industry called fluoridation to make money, sedate the nation, and dispose of highly toxic chemical waste through the systems of our vunerable children. How moronic and victorian is this ? how morally wrong is it ? I suggest everyone installs a reverse osmosis system and take the costs out of their water bills, if all do it then they will have to make changes.[/p][/quote]Why have these detrimental effects shown up in the Midlands where the water supply has been fluoridated for more than half a century? Linesman

4:58pm Fri 18 Jan 13

Linesman says...

Linesman wrote:
beaucarrel wrote:
No one knows exactly what the long term effect water fluoridation has because there is nothing in place to look for such things, because it would defeat their objective.

Professor Susheela from India is the only nationally funded scientist charged with studying the effects which fluoride has on people. I went to her lectures when she came to england and I studied her findings.

She concluded that there are no safe levels of fluoride, she also concluded that fluoride damages teeth, and is stored in the bones. It also destroys the cilia of the stomach lining which leads to malnutrition just to mention a few of her findings.

The UKs own York report after removing many pieces of evidence which showed fluoride to be harmful, still found it to be niether safe nor efficious and did indeed cause fluorosis.

Fluoride is used in many mind altering drugs, it is present in tea and other enviromental sources. The truth is there is no way of limiting the intake of fluoride to keep it below 1pmm a figure which Professor Susheela says is still harmfull.

Bad teeth are preventable, and it is the sugar industry which should be taxed for the damage it causes, but these companies fund political bodies, so they create a new industry called fluoridation to make money, sedate the nation, and dispose of highly toxic chemical waste through the systems of our vunerable children.

How moronic and victorian is this ? how morally wrong is it ? I suggest everyone installs a reverse osmosis system and take the costs out of their water bills, if all do it then they will have to make changes.
Why have these detrimental effects shown up in the Midlands where the water supply has been fluoridated for more than half a century?
Correction.

Why have these detrimental effects NOT shown up in the Midlands where the water supply has been fluoridated for more than half a century?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beaucarrel[/bold] wrote: No one knows exactly what the long term effect water fluoridation has because there is nothing in place to look for such things, because it would defeat their objective. Professor Susheela from India is the only nationally funded scientist charged with studying the effects which fluoride has on people. I went to her lectures when she came to england and I studied her findings. She concluded that there are no safe levels of fluoride, she also concluded that fluoride damages teeth, and is stored in the bones. It also destroys the cilia of the stomach lining which leads to malnutrition just to mention a few of her findings. The UKs own York report after removing many pieces of evidence which showed fluoride to be harmful, still found it to be niether safe nor efficious and did indeed cause fluorosis. Fluoride is used in many mind altering drugs, it is present in tea and other enviromental sources. The truth is there is no way of limiting the intake of fluoride to keep it below 1pmm a figure which Professor Susheela says is still harmfull. Bad teeth are preventable, and it is the sugar industry which should be taxed for the damage it causes, but these companies fund political bodies, so they create a new industry called fluoridation to make money, sedate the nation, and dispose of highly toxic chemical waste through the systems of our vunerable children. How moronic and victorian is this ? how morally wrong is it ? I suggest everyone installs a reverse osmosis system and take the costs out of their water bills, if all do it then they will have to make changes.[/p][/quote]Why have these detrimental effects shown up in the Midlands where the water supply has been fluoridated for more than half a century?[/p][/quote]Correction. Why have these detrimental effects NOT shown up in the Midlands where the water supply has been fluoridated for more than half a century? Linesman

6:00pm Fri 18 Jan 13

Shergold says...

Linesman - these detrimental effects HAVE SHOWN up!! they just dont hit the headlines with this info.

http://www.wmaf.org.
uk/index.php?content
=home_page&parent=1&
read=1


http://www.wmaf.org.
uk/userfiles/EMAF%20
CAMPAIGN%20LEAFLET%2
0v8.pdf
Linesman - these detrimental effects HAVE SHOWN up!! they just dont hit the headlines with this info. http://www.wmaf.org. uk/index.php?content =home_page&parent=1& read=1 http://www.wmaf.org. uk/userfiles/EMAF%20 CAMPAIGN%20LEAFLET%2 0v8.pdf Shergold

6:28pm Fri 18 Jan 13

Shergold says...

Linesman - There was a Dr Peter Mansfield that tested over 500 volunteers in the Midlands and over 60% had 4 times so called safe limit in their urine samples.

He submitted his report which the medical board rejected it and tried to discredit him. (Thats what happens when you find out the truth - those in power do NOT want to know the truth.)

http://www.i-sis.org
.uk/NotoFluoridation
.php
Linesman - There was a Dr Peter Mansfield that tested over 500 volunteers in the Midlands and over 60% had 4 times so called safe limit in their urine samples. He submitted his report which the medical board rejected it and tried to discredit him. (Thats what happens when you find out the truth - those in power do NOT want to know the truth.) http://www.i-sis.org .uk/NotoFluoridation .php Shergold

7:19pm Fri 18 Jan 13

whats_that_button_for says...

UPDATE:
Here's a quick analysis of the comments here so far:

===================
===================

Pro-fluoridation commenters:

1. cliffwalker:
a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with MMR. Different issues.
b. Who to consult when in doubt? Try Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridea
lert.org
c. 97% of Europe has chosen fluoride-free water: http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/articles/fl
uoride-facts/

2. Chas O'Bursledon:
a. Which area of SW London is he talking about relating to fluoridation?

3. Linesman:
a. Evidence?: 72% of people during the public fluoridation consultation for Southampton voted against fluoridation. Were you one of the 28%?
b. No fluorosis evidence in Midlands? :
http://www.wmaf.org.
uk/index.php?content
=content&parent=3&re
ad=3&keyword=
http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/issues/heal
th/pineal-gland/
http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/issues/fluo
rosis/

4. business-guru: no harmful side effects to fluoride in water? Where did you look? Which part of the info at this site do you disagree with and why? : http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/articles/fl
uoride-facts/

5. kingnotail: Just look at this guy's comments on the Echo site here. He has nothing good to say about anything.

These commenters are FUD merchants - because they promote fluoridation without quoting any evidence for their position. Probably because they have none. Consensus replaces scientific facts now?

FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt:
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Fear,_uncer
tainty_and_doubt

Five pro-fluoridation commenters.

===================
===================

Anti-fluoridation commenters :

1. Bagamn
2. freefinker
3. ginger cyclist
4. Taskforce141
5. st1halo
6. southy
7. Subject48
8. BeyondImagination
9. Stephen J
10. myself
11. EvieMa
12. Shergold
13. saintinpattaya
14. Joe8135
15. beaucarrel
16. peter sowerby

Sixteen anti-fluoridation commenters.

===================
===================

Undeclared position on fluoridation commenters:

1. St Retford:
a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with climate change (cc). Precautionary principle (pp) is advocated with cc, but you appear not to consider pp valid when fluoridation is the topic? Why?
b. Made fun of challenge to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus. Inconvenient?
c. Says position not stated, but appears pro-fluoridation from comments.

2. FoysCornerBoy
Not declared position on fluoridation, but looks to be pro-fluoridation from comments.

3. beiroot

Three undeclared positions on fluoridation commenters.

===================
===================

Summary:
5 For fluoridation
16 Against fluoridation
3 Undeclared positions on fluoridation

The consensus here is against fluoridation, so the pro fluoridation people here are in a minority.

It is also noted that the pro-fluoridation commenters never provide any evidence for their position.
UPDATE: Here's a quick analysis of the comments here so far: =================== =================== Pro-fluoridation commenters: 1. cliffwalker: a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with MMR. Different issues. b. Who to consult when in doubt? Try Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridea lert.org c. 97% of Europe has chosen fluoride-free water: http://www.fluoridea lert.org/articles/fl uoride-facts/ 2. Chas O'Bursledon: a. Which area of SW London is he talking about relating to fluoridation? 3. Linesman: a. Evidence?: 72% of people during the public fluoridation consultation for Southampton voted against fluoridation. Were you one of the 28%? b. No fluorosis evidence in Midlands? : http://www.wmaf.org. uk/index.php?content =content&parent=3&re ad=3&keyword= http://www.fluoridea lert.org/issues/heal th/pineal-gland/ http://www.fluoridea lert.org/issues/fluo rosis/ 4. business-guru: no harmful side effects to fluoride in water? Where did you look? Which part of the info at this site do you disagree with and why? : http://www.fluoridea lert.org/articles/fl uoride-facts/ 5. kingnotail: Just look at this guy's comments on the Echo site here. He has nothing good to say about anything. These commenters are FUD merchants - because they promote fluoridation without quoting any evidence for their position. Probably because they have none. Consensus replaces scientific facts now? FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Fear,_uncer tainty_and_doubt Five pro-fluoridation commenters. =================== =================== Anti-fluoridation commenters : 1. Bagamn 2. freefinker 3. ginger cyclist 4. Taskforce141 5. st1halo 6. southy 7. Subject48 8. BeyondImagination 9. Stephen J 10. myself 11. EvieMa 12. Shergold 13. saintinpattaya 14. Joe8135 15. beaucarrel 16. peter sowerby Sixteen anti-fluoridation commenters. =================== =================== Undeclared position on fluoridation commenters: 1. St Retford: a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with climate change (cc). Precautionary principle (pp) is advocated with cc, but you appear not to consider pp valid when fluoridation is the topic? Why? b. Made fun of challenge to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus. Inconvenient? c. Says position not stated, but appears pro-fluoridation from comments. 2. FoysCornerBoy Not declared position on fluoridation, but looks to be pro-fluoridation from comments. 3. beiroot Three undeclared positions on fluoridation commenters. =================== =================== Summary: 5 For fluoridation 16 Against fluoridation 3 Undeclared positions on fluoridation The consensus here is against fluoridation, so the pro fluoridation people here are in a minority. It is also noted that the pro-fluoridation commenters never provide any evidence for their position. whats_that_button_for

7:32pm Fri 18 Jan 13

whats_that_button_for says...

UPDATE:
Here's a quick analysis of the comments here so far:

===================
===================

Pro-fluoridation commenters:

1. cliffwalker:
a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with MMR. Different issues.
b. Who to consult when in doubt? Try Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridea
lert.org
c. 97% of Europe has chosen fluoride-free water: http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/articles/fl
uoride-facts/

2. Chas O'Bursledon:
a. Which area of SW London is he talking about relating to fluoridation?

3. Linesman:
a. Evidence?: 72% of people during the public fluoridation consultation for Southampton voted against fluoridation. Were you one of the 28%?
b. No fluorosis evidence in Midlands? :
http://www.wmaf.org.
uk/index.php?content
=content&parent=3&re
ad=3&keyword=
http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/issues/heal
th/pineal-gland/
http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/issues/fluo
rosis/

4. business-guru: no harmful side effects to fluoride in water? Where did you look? Which part of the info at this site do you disagree with and why? : http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/articles/fl
uoride-facts/

5. kingnotail: Just look at this guy's comments on the Echo site here. He has nothing good to say about anything.

These commenters are FUD merchants - because they promote fluoridation without quoting any evidence for their position. Probably because they have none. Consensus replaces scientific facts now?

FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt:
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Fear,_uncer
tainty_and_doubt

Five pro-fluoridation commenters.

===================
===================

Anti-fluoridation commenters :

1. Bagamn
2. freefinker
3. ginger cyclist
4. Taskforce141
5. st1halo
6. southy
7. Subject48
8. BeyondImagination
9. Stephen J
10. myself
11. EvieMa
12. Shergold
13. saintinpattaya
14. Joe8135
15. beaucarrel
16. peter sowerby
17. likewatchingbrazil

Seventeen anti-fluoridation commenters.

===================
===================

Undeclared position on fluoridation commenters:

1. St Retford:
a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with climate change (cc). Precautionary principle (pp) is advocated with cc, but you appear not to consider pp valid when fluoridation is the topic? Why?
b. Made fun of challenge to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus. Inconvenient?
c. Says position not stated, but appears pro-fluoridation from comments.

2. FoysCornerBoy
Not declared position on fluoridation, but looks to be pro-fluoridation from comments.

3. beiroot

4. Beer Monster

Four undeclared positions on fluoridation commenters.

===================
===================

Summary:
5 For fluoridation
17 Against fluoridation
4 Undeclared positions on fluoridation

The consensus here is against fluoridation, so the pro fluoridation people here are in a minority.

It is also noted that the pro-fluoridation commenters never provide any evidence for their position.
UPDATE: Here's a quick analysis of the comments here so far: =================== =================== Pro-fluoridation commenters: 1. cliffwalker: a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with MMR. Different issues. b. Who to consult when in doubt? Try Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridea lert.org c. 97% of Europe has chosen fluoride-free water: http://www.fluoridea lert.org/articles/fl uoride-facts/ 2. Chas O'Bursledon: a. Which area of SW London is he talking about relating to fluoridation? 3. Linesman: a. Evidence?: 72% of people during the public fluoridation consultation for Southampton voted against fluoridation. Were you one of the 28%? b. No fluorosis evidence in Midlands? : http://www.wmaf.org. uk/index.php?content =content&parent=3&re ad=3&keyword= http://www.fluoridea lert.org/issues/heal th/pineal-gland/ http://www.fluoridea lert.org/issues/fluo rosis/ 4. business-guru: no harmful side effects to fluoride in water? Where did you look? Which part of the info at this site do you disagree with and why? : http://www.fluoridea lert.org/articles/fl uoride-facts/ 5. kingnotail: Just look at this guy's comments on the Echo site here. He has nothing good to say about anything. These commenters are FUD merchants - because they promote fluoridation without quoting any evidence for their position. Probably because they have none. Consensus replaces scientific facts now? FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Fear,_uncer tainty_and_doubt Five pro-fluoridation commenters. =================== =================== Anti-fluoridation commenters : 1. Bagamn 2. freefinker 3. ginger cyclist 4. Taskforce141 5. st1halo 6. southy 7. Subject48 8. BeyondImagination 9. Stephen J 10. myself 11. EvieMa 12. Shergold 13. saintinpattaya 14. Joe8135 15. beaucarrel 16. peter sowerby 17. likewatchingbrazil Seventeen anti-fluoridation commenters. =================== =================== Undeclared position on fluoridation commenters: 1. St Retford: a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with climate change (cc). Precautionary principle (pp) is advocated with cc, but you appear not to consider pp valid when fluoridation is the topic? Why? b. Made fun of challenge to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus. Inconvenient? c. Says position not stated, but appears pro-fluoridation from comments. 2. FoysCornerBoy Not declared position on fluoridation, but looks to be pro-fluoridation from comments. 3. beiroot 4. Beer Monster Four undeclared positions on fluoridation commenters. =================== =================== Summary: 5 For fluoridation 17 Against fluoridation 4 Undeclared positions on fluoridation The consensus here is against fluoridation, so the pro fluoridation people here are in a minority. It is also noted that the pro-fluoridation commenters never provide any evidence for their position. whats_that_button_for

7:51pm Fri 18 Jan 13

peter sowerby says...

I felt the pro fluoride publicity stunt on south today painting fluoride on childrens, teeth reminded me of tory MP john Gummer stuffing a beefburger down his child's throat. Sorry I have got to be harsh, it's no more than child abuse and should be stopped now.
I felt the pro fluoride publicity stunt on south today painting fluoride on childrens, teeth reminded me of tory MP john Gummer stuffing a beefburger down his child's throat. Sorry I have got to be harsh, it's no more than child abuse and should be stopped now. peter sowerby

9:47pm Fri 18 Jan 13

white tooth says...

Lets get to the nitty gritty of this.....the majority of the public do not want toxic waste chemicals putting into thier water supplies, as it does not improve the quality of the water, and it takes away their basic human right of choice.

Further more children from low income families who eat badly and have a low calcium diet are the ones who will suffer most from the effects of fluoride as laid down by the only Professor in the world to have been funded by her government to find out just how harmful this chemical is.

Why won't governments who want to use fluoride fund independent studies as to it efficacy and safety in the same manner as professor Susheela was.

Why will this government not test for overall levels of fluoride consumed though the water, foods, and pollution, just how high are the levels and who is the worst culprit for polluting us with the stuff, and what is it doing to the people, do the government want to know or do they already know....I think we all know don't we!
Lets get to the nitty gritty of this.....the majority of the public do not want toxic waste chemicals putting into thier water supplies, as it does not improve the quality of the water, and it takes away their basic human right of choice. Further more children from low income families who eat badly and have a low calcium diet are the ones who will suffer most from the effects of fluoride as laid down by the only Professor in the world to have been funded by her government to find out just how harmful this chemical is. Why won't governments who want to use fluoride fund independent studies as to it efficacy and safety in the same manner as professor Susheela was. Why will this government not test for overall levels of fluoride consumed though the water, foods, and pollution, just how high are the levels and who is the worst culprit for polluting us with the stuff, and what is it doing to the people, do the government want to know or do they already know....I think we all know don't we! white tooth

10:20pm Mon 21 Jan 13

whats_that_button_for says...

"I know of absolutely no, and I mean absolutely NO means of prevention, that would save so many lives as simply to stop fluoridation. Or, don't start it where it is otherwise going to be started. There, you might 30,000 or 40,000 lives a year. Cancer lives … That's an awful lot of lives a year."

Dr. Dean Burk, Ph.D
(34 Years - The National Cancer Institute)
Judicial Hearing, January 14, 1982

Source: http://www.zengardne
r.com/our-poisoned-w
ater-the-whole-story
/
"I know of absolutely no, and I mean absolutely NO means of prevention, that would save so many lives as simply to stop fluoridation. Or, don't start it where it is otherwise going to be started. There, you might 30,000 or 40,000 lives a year. Cancer lives … That's an awful lot of lives a year." Dr. Dean Burk, Ph.D (34 Years - The National Cancer Institute) Judicial Hearing, January 14, 1982 Source: http://www.zengardne r.com/our-poisoned-w ater-the-whole-story / whats_that_button_for

10:21pm Mon 21 Jan 13

whats_that_button_for says...

Dr. Dean Burk - Fluoride Causes Cancer:

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=ClqK7XvfL
g0
Dr. Dean Burk - Fluoride Causes Cancer: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=ClqK7XvfL g0 whats_that_button_for

10:41pm Mon 21 Jan 13

whats_that_button_for says...

Interestingly, it seems that Edward Bernays (of Public Relations & Propaganda fame) is behind the 'fluoride is good for you' idea. The following articles show this link:

http://www.zengardne
r.com/our-poisoned-w
ater-the-whole-story
/
http://www.g-tigercl
aw.com/bernays.htm
http://www.primitivi
sm.com/fluoride.htm

===================
===================

More info on Edward Bernays:
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Edward_Bern
ays#Techniques :

Bernays refined and popularized the use of the press release, following its invention by PR man Ivy Lee, who had issued a press release after the 1906 Atlantic City train wreck. One of the most famous campaigns of Bernays was the women's cigarette smoking campaign in 1920s. Bernays helped the smoking industry overcome one of the biggest social taboos of the time: women smoking in public. Women were only allowed to smoke in designated areas, or not at all. If caught violating this rule, women would have been arrested. Bernays staged the 1929 Easter parade in New York City, showing models holding lit Lucky Strike cigarettes, or "Torches of Freedom". After the historical public event, women started lighting up more than ever before. It was through Bernays that women's smoking habits started to become socially acceptable. Bernays created this event as news, which, of course, it wasn’t. Bernays convinced industries that the news, not advertising, was the best medium to carry their message to an unsuspecting public.

One of Bernays' favorite techniques for manipulating public opinion was the indirect use of "third party authorities" to plead his clients' causes. "If you can influence the leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway", he said. In order to promote sales of bacon, for example, he conducted a survey of physicians and reported their recommendation that people eat heavy breakfasts. He sent the results of the survey to 5,000 physicians, along with publicity touting bacon and eggs as a heavy breakfast.

Bernays also drew upon his uncle Sigmund's psychoanalytic ideas for the benefit of commerce in order to promote, by indirection, commodities as diverse as cigarettes, soap and books.

In addition to the theories of his uncle, Bernays used those of Ivan Pavlov.

PR industry historian Scott Cutlip describes Bernays as "perhaps the most fabulous and fascinating individual in public relations, a man who was bright, articulate to excess, and most of all, an innovative thinker and philosopher of this vocation that was in its infancy when he opened his office in New York in June 1919."

Bernays used the “Freudian Theory” to deal with the public's conception of communism, as he believed that we should not be easing the public's fear of communism, but rather promote that fear and play with the public's emotions of it. This theory in its own was so powerful that it became a weapon of its own during the cold war.

===================
===================

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Edward_Bern
ays#Propaganda :

In Propaganda (1928), Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of democracy:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."
Interestingly, it seems that Edward Bernays (of Public Relations & Propaganda fame) is behind the 'fluoride is good for you' idea. The following articles show this link: http://www.zengardne r.com/our-poisoned-w ater-the-whole-story / http://www.g-tigercl aw.com/bernays.htm http://www.primitivi sm.com/fluoride.htm =================== =================== More info on Edward Bernays: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Edward_Bern ays#Techniques : Bernays refined and popularized the use of the press release, following its invention by PR man Ivy Lee, who had issued a press release after the 1906 Atlantic City train wreck. One of the most famous campaigns of Bernays was the women's cigarette smoking campaign in 1920s. Bernays helped the smoking industry overcome one of the biggest social taboos of the time: women smoking in public. Women were only allowed to smoke in designated areas, or not at all. If caught violating this rule, women would have been arrested. Bernays staged the 1929 Easter parade in New York City, showing models holding lit Lucky Strike cigarettes, or "Torches of Freedom". After the historical public event, women started lighting up more than ever before. It was through Bernays that women's smoking habits started to become socially acceptable. Bernays created this event as news, which, of course, it wasn’t. Bernays convinced industries that the news, not advertising, was the best medium to carry their message to an unsuspecting public. One of Bernays' favorite techniques for manipulating public opinion was the indirect use of "third party authorities" to plead his clients' causes. "If you can influence the leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway", he said. In order to promote sales of bacon, for example, he conducted a survey of physicians and reported their recommendation that people eat heavy breakfasts. He sent the results of the survey to 5,000 physicians, along with publicity touting bacon and eggs as a heavy breakfast. Bernays also drew upon his uncle Sigmund's psychoanalytic ideas for the benefit of commerce in order to promote, by indirection, commodities as diverse as cigarettes, soap and books. In addition to the theories of his uncle, Bernays used those of Ivan Pavlov. PR industry historian Scott Cutlip describes Bernays as "perhaps the most fabulous and fascinating individual in public relations, a man who was bright, articulate to excess, and most of all, an innovative thinker and philosopher of this vocation that was in its infancy when he opened his office in New York in June 1919." Bernays used the “Freudian Theory” to deal with the public's conception of communism, as he believed that we should not be easing the public's fear of communism, but rather promote that fear and play with the public's emotions of it. This theory in its own was so powerful that it became a weapon of its own during the cold war. =================== =================== http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Edward_Bern ays#Propaganda : In Propaganda (1928), Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of democracy: "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind." whats_that_button_for

10:48pm Mon 21 Jan 13

whats_that_button_for says...

UPDATE 2:
Here's a quick analysis of the comments here so far:

===================
===================

Pro-fluoridation commenters:

1. cliffwalker:
a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with MMR. Different issues.
b. Who to consult when in doubt? Try Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridea
lert.org
c. 97% of Europe has chosen fluoride-free water: http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/articles/fl
uoride-facts/

2. Chas O'Bursledon:
a. Which area of SW London is he talking about relating to fluoridation?

3. Linesman:
a. Evidence?: 72% of people during the public fluoridation consultation for Southampton voted against fluoridation. Were you one of the 28%?
b. No fluorosis evidence in Midlands? :
http://www.wmaf.org.
uk/index.php?content
=content&parent=3&re
ad=3&keyword=
http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/issues/heal
th/pineal-gland/
http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/issues/fluo
rosis/

4. business-guru: no harmful side effects to fluoride in water? Where did you look? Which part of the info at this site do you disagree with and why? : http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/articles/fl
uoride-facts/

5. kingnotail: Just look at this guy's comments on the Echo site here. He has nothing good to say about anything.

These commenters are FUD merchants - because they promote fluoridation without quoting any evidence for their position. Probably because they have none. Consensus replaces scientific facts now?

FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt:
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Fear,_uncer
tainty_and_doubt

Five pro-fluoridation commenters.

===================
===================

Anti-fluoridation commenters :

1. Bagamn
2. freefinker
3. ginger cyclist
4. Taskforce141
5. st1halo
6. southy
7. Subject48
8. BeyondImagination
9. Stephen J
10. myself
11. EvieMa
12. Shergold
13. saintinpattaya
14. Joe8135
15. beaucarrel
16. peter sowerby
17. likewatchingbrazil
18. white tooth

Eighteen anti-fluoridation commenters.

===================
===================

Undeclared position on fluoridation commenters:

1. St Retford:
a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with climate change (cc). Precautionary principle (pp) is advocated with cc, but you appear not to consider pp valid when fluoridation is the topic? Why?
b. Made fun of challenge to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus. Inconvenient?
c. Says position not stated, but appears pro-fluoridation from comments.

2. FoysCornerBoy
Not declared position on fluoridation, but looks to be pro-fluoridation from comments.

3. beiroot

4. Beer Monster

Four undeclared positions on fluoridation commenters.

===================
===================

Summary:
5 For fluoridation
18 Against fluoridation
4 Undeclared positions on fluoridation

The consensus here is against fluoridation, so the pro fluoridation people here are in a minority.

It is also noted that the pro-fluoridation commenters never provide any evidence for their position.
UPDATE 2: Here's a quick analysis of the comments here so far: =================== =================== Pro-fluoridation commenters: 1. cliffwalker: a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with MMR. Different issues. b. Who to consult when in doubt? Try Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridea lert.org c. 97% of Europe has chosen fluoride-free water: http://www.fluoridea lert.org/articles/fl uoride-facts/ 2. Chas O'Bursledon: a. Which area of SW London is he talking about relating to fluoridation? 3. Linesman: a. Evidence?: 72% of people during the public fluoridation consultation for Southampton voted against fluoridation. Were you one of the 28%? b. No fluorosis evidence in Midlands? : http://www.wmaf.org. uk/index.php?content =content&parent=3&re ad=3&keyword= http://www.fluoridea lert.org/issues/heal th/pineal-gland/ http://www.fluoridea lert.org/issues/fluo rosis/ 4. business-guru: no harmful side effects to fluoride in water? Where did you look? Which part of the info at this site do you disagree with and why? : http://www.fluoridea lert.org/articles/fl uoride-facts/ 5. kingnotail: Just look at this guy's comments on the Echo site here. He has nothing good to say about anything. These commenters are FUD merchants - because they promote fluoridation without quoting any evidence for their position. Probably because they have none. Consensus replaces scientific facts now? FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Fear,_uncer tainty_and_doubt Five pro-fluoridation commenters. =================== =================== Anti-fluoridation commenters : 1. Bagamn 2. freefinker 3. ginger cyclist 4. Taskforce141 5. st1halo 6. southy 7. Subject48 8. BeyondImagination 9. Stephen J 10. myself 11. EvieMa 12. Shergold 13. saintinpattaya 14. Joe8135 15. beaucarrel 16. peter sowerby 17. likewatchingbrazil 18. white tooth Eighteen anti-fluoridation commenters. =================== =================== Undeclared position on fluoridation commenters: 1. St Retford: a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with climate change (cc). Precautionary principle (pp) is advocated with cc, but you appear not to consider pp valid when fluoridation is the topic? Why? b. Made fun of challenge to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus. Inconvenient? c. Says position not stated, but appears pro-fluoridation from comments. 2. FoysCornerBoy Not declared position on fluoridation, but looks to be pro-fluoridation from comments. 3. beiroot 4. Beer Monster Four undeclared positions on fluoridation commenters. =================== =================== Summary: 5 For fluoridation 18 Against fluoridation 4 Undeclared positions on fluoridation The consensus here is against fluoridation, so the pro fluoridation people here are in a minority. It is also noted that the pro-fluoridation commenters never provide any evidence for their position. whats_that_button_for

10:59pm Mon 21 Jan 13

peter sowerby says...

Southern Water must have some responsibility for uncontrolled fluoride contamination of the water supply as they don't even seem to know which customer's will be getting fluoride in their water systems. Also the new pumping station that's needed to pump this filth where is it? has planing permission been given. SHA can walk away without fear of prosecution in the future, but southern water should not.
Southern Water must have some responsibility for uncontrolled fluoride contamination of the water supply as they don't even seem to know which customer's will be getting fluoride in their water systems. Also the new pumping station that's needed to pump this filth where is it? has planing permission been given. SHA can walk away without fear of prosecution in the future, but southern water should not. peter sowerby

5:25am Wed 30 Jan 13

Dan Soton says...

Cairns Council Votes To Dump Fluoride.. Amounts To "Involuntary Medication" ..


-


Cairns council votes to dump fluoride..

Date.January 30, 2013 - 12:14PM.

The Cairns City Council will remove fluoride from its water supply, saying it amounts to the "involuntary medication" of residents.

But the council says it won't be doing anything to determine if there's broad community support for fluoridation to continue.

"If people want to have access to fluoride, they need to take that up with their dentists," a council spokeswoman said on Wednesday.

"The decision has been made ... it shouldn't be forced on people without consent."

Fluoridation currently cost the council about $300,000 in chemicals, staffing, testing, electricity and infrastructure, he said.

Fluoride will stop being added to the Cairns water supply from the middle of next month.

-


http://www.brisbanet
imes.com.au/queensla
nd/cairns-council-vo
tes-to-dump-fluoride
-20130130-2dk1a.html
Cairns Council Votes To Dump Fluoride.. Amounts To "Involuntary Medication" .. - Cairns council votes to dump fluoride.. Date.January 30, 2013 - 12:14PM. The Cairns City Council will remove fluoride from its water supply, saying it amounts to the "involuntary medication" of residents. But the council says it won't be doing anything to determine if there's broad community support for fluoridation to continue. "If people want to have access to fluoride, they need to take that up with their dentists," a council spokeswoman said on Wednesday. "The decision has been made ... it shouldn't be forced on people without consent." Fluoridation currently cost the council about $300,000 in chemicals, staffing, testing, electricity and infrastructure, he said. Fluoride will stop being added to the Cairns water supply from the middle of next month. - http://www.brisbanet imes.com.au/queensla nd/cairns-council-vo tes-to-dump-fluoride -20130130-2dk1a.html Dan Soton

7:19am Fri 1 Feb 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Cairns Council Votes To Dump Fluoride.. Amounts To "Involuntary Medication" ..


-


Cairns council votes to dump fluoride..

Date.January 30, 2013 - 12:14PM.

The Cairns City Council will remove fluoride from its water supply, saying it amounts to the "involuntary medication" of residents.

But the council says it won't be doing anything to determine if there's broad community support for fluoridation to continue.

"If people want to have access to fluoride, they need to take that up with their dentists," a council spokeswoman said on Wednesday.

"The decision has been made ... it shouldn't be forced on people without consent."

Fluoridation currently cost the council about $300,000 in chemicals, staffing, testing, electricity and infrastructure, he said.

Fluoride will stop being added to the Cairns water supply from the middle of next month.

-


http://www.brisbanet

imes.com.au/queensla

nd/cairns-council-vo

tes-to-dump-fluoride

-20130130-2dk1a.html
Fluoridation X-Files.. Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.

-


THE TEETH OF SOUTHAMPTON'S 5 YEAR OLD'S ARE GENERALLY BETTER THAN THE ENGLAND AVERAGE.

In fact tooth decay in our close neighbors 5 year old's, MILTON KEYNES, Reading & Slough are significantly worse than the England average.

-


www.apho.org.uk/reso
urce/view.aspx?RID=9
5375
-



Here's the killer, MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated.. 1.0 to 1.5 mg/f which is above recommended fluoridation levels

-

http://tinyurl.com/b
8m9wh8
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Cairns Council Votes To Dump Fluoride.. Amounts To "Involuntary Medication" .. - Cairns council votes to dump fluoride.. Date.January 30, 2013 - 12:14PM. The Cairns City Council will remove fluoride from its water supply, saying it amounts to the "involuntary medication" of residents. But the council says it won't be doing anything to determine if there's broad community support for fluoridation to continue. "If people want to have access to fluoride, they need to take that up with their dentists," a council spokeswoman said on Wednesday. "The decision has been made ... it shouldn't be forced on people without consent." Fluoridation currently cost the council about $300,000 in chemicals, staffing, testing, electricity and infrastructure, he said. Fluoride will stop being added to the Cairns water supply from the middle of next month. - http://www.brisbanet imes.com.au/queensla nd/cairns-council-vo tes-to-dump-fluoride -20130130-2dk1a.html[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. - THE TEETH OF SOUTHAMPTON'S 5 YEAR OLD'S ARE GENERALLY BETTER THAN THE ENGLAND AVERAGE. In fact tooth decay in our close neighbors 5 year old's, MILTON KEYNES, Reading & Slough are significantly worse than the England average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Here's the killer, MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated.. 1.0 to 1.5 mg/f which is above recommended fluoridation levels - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8 Dan Soton

3:04pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Cairns Council Votes To Dump Fluoride.. Amounts To "Involuntary Medication" ..


-


Cairns council votes to dump fluoride..

Date.January 30, 2013 - 12:14PM.

The Cairns City Council will remove fluoride from its water supply, saying it amounts to the "involuntary medication" of residents.

But the council says it won't be doing anything to determine if there's broad community support for fluoridation to continue.

"If people want to have access to fluoride, they need to take that up with their dentists," a council spokeswoman said on Wednesday.

"The decision has been made ... it shouldn't be forced on people without consent."

Fluoridation currently cost the council about $300,000 in chemicals, staffing, testing, electricity and infrastructure, he said.

Fluoride will stop being added to the Cairns water supply from the middle of next month.

-


http://www.brisbanet


imes.com.au/queensla


nd/cairns-council-vo


tes-to-dump-fluoride


-20130130-2dk1a.html
Fluoridation X-Files.. Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.

-


THE TEETH OF SOUTHAMPTON'S 5 YEAR OLD'S ARE GENERALLY BETTER THAN THE ENGLAND AVERAGE.

In fact tooth decay in our close neighbors 5 year old's, MILTON KEYNES, Reading & Slough are significantly worse than the England average.

-


www.apho.org.uk/reso

urce/view.aspx?RID=9

5375
-



Here's the killer, MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated.. 1.0 to 1.5 mg/f which is above recommended fluoridation levels

-

http://tinyurl.com/b

8m9wh8
Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than Southampton's.


-

Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.



Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than SHA's Average.


Southampton's Adult Obesity is Not Significantly different from SHA's Average.


-

www.apho.org.uk/reso
urce/view.aspx?RID=9
5375

-

Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l
-

http://tinyurl.com/b
8m9wh8

-



TAP (fluoridated) WATER CAN MAKE YOU FAT, SAY EXPERTS

Jul 11 2004.

By Caroline Wheeler, Sunday Mercury.

Medical experts claim that West Midlands tap water can make people FAT and could be fuelling rising obesity levels.

For the past 40 years, fluoride has been pumped into the region's tap water to help keep teeth healthy.

But now a top doctor claims that the toxin can cause worrying health side-effects including hypothyroidism, a medical dis-order affecting the thyroid gland which controls weight gain.

And he believes that children may be particularly susceptible to obesity if their mums drank fluoridated water while pregnant.

LAST YEAR, THE WEST MIDLANDS TOPPED THE UK 'FAT LIST' WITH A SHOCKING 22.5 PER CENT OF ITS POPULATION CLASSED CLINICALLY OBESE.

Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield said: "There is no doubt that fluoride is enzyme disruptive and one thing it affects is thyroid hormones.

"As a result of this disruption, people can finish up with partial under-activity of the thyroid gland.

"Thyroid problems are becoming more common, particularly in Birmingham, and one of the reasons is because of fluoride in the water."

-


http://tinyurl.com/a
jtcvgm
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Cairns Council Votes To Dump Fluoride.. Amounts To "Involuntary Medication" .. - Cairns council votes to dump fluoride.. Date.January 30, 2013 - 12:14PM. The Cairns City Council will remove fluoride from its water supply, saying it amounts to the "involuntary medication" of residents. But the council says it won't be doing anything to determine if there's broad community support for fluoridation to continue. "If people want to have access to fluoride, they need to take that up with their dentists," a council spokeswoman said on Wednesday. "The decision has been made ... it shouldn't be forced on people without consent." Fluoridation currently cost the council about $300,000 in chemicals, staffing, testing, electricity and infrastructure, he said. Fluoride will stop being added to the Cairns water supply from the middle of next month. - http://www.brisbanet imes.com.au/queensla nd/cairns-council-vo tes-to-dump-fluoride -20130130-2dk1a.html[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. - THE TEETH OF SOUTHAMPTON'S 5 YEAR OLD'S ARE GENERALLY BETTER THAN THE ENGLAND AVERAGE. In fact tooth decay in our close neighbors 5 year old's, MILTON KEYNES, Reading & Slough are significantly worse than the England average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Here's the killer, MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated.. 1.0 to 1.5 mg/f which is above recommended fluoridation levels - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than Southampton's. - Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than SHA's Average. Southampton's Adult Obesity is Not Significantly different from SHA's Average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8 - TAP (fluoridated) WATER CAN MAKE YOU FAT, SAY EXPERTS Jul 11 2004. By Caroline Wheeler, Sunday Mercury. Medical experts claim that West Midlands tap water can make people FAT and could be fuelling rising obesity levels. For the past 40 years, fluoride has been pumped into the region's tap water to help keep teeth healthy. But now a top doctor claims that the toxin can cause worrying health side-effects including hypothyroidism, a medical dis-order affecting the thyroid gland which controls weight gain. And he believes that children may be particularly susceptible to obesity if their mums drank fluoridated water while pregnant. LAST YEAR, THE WEST MIDLANDS TOPPED THE UK 'FAT LIST' WITH A SHOCKING 22.5 PER CENT OF ITS POPULATION CLASSED CLINICALLY OBESE. Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield said: "There is no doubt that fluoride is enzyme disruptive and one thing it affects is thyroid hormones. "As a result of this disruption, people can finish up with partial under-activity of the thyroid gland. "Thyroid problems are becoming more common, particularly in Birmingham, and one of the reasons is because of fluoride in the water." - http://tinyurl.com/a jtcvgm Dan Soton

6:11pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Cairns Council Votes To Dump Fluoride.. Amounts To "Involuntary Medication" ..


-


Cairns council votes to dump fluoride..

Date.January 30, 2013 - 12:14PM.

The Cairns City Council will remove fluoride from its water supply, saying it amounts to the "involuntary medication" of residents.

But the council says it won't be doing anything to determine if there's broad community support for fluoridation to continue.

"If people want to have access to fluoride, they need to take that up with their dentists," a council spokeswoman said on Wednesday.

"The decision has been made ... it shouldn't be forced on people without consent."

Fluoridation currently cost the council about $300,000 in chemicals, staffing, testing, electricity and infrastructure, he said.

Fluoride will stop being added to the Cairns water supply from the middle of next month.

-


http://www.brisbanet



imes.com.au/queensla



nd/cairns-council-vo



tes-to-dump-fluoride



-20130130-2dk1a.html
Fluoridation X-Files.. Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.

-


THE TEETH OF SOUTHAMPTON'S 5 YEAR OLD'S ARE GENERALLY BETTER THAN THE ENGLAND AVERAGE.

In fact tooth decay in our close neighbors 5 year old's, MILTON KEYNES, Reading & Slough are significantly worse than the England average.

-


www.apho.org.uk/reso


urce/view.aspx?RID=9


5375
-



Here's the killer, MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated.. 1.0 to 1.5 mg/f which is above recommended fluoridation levels

-

http://tinyurl.com/b


8m9wh8
Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than Southampton's.


-

Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.



Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than SHA's Average.


Southampton's Adult Obesity is Not Significantly different from SHA's Average.


-

www.apho.org.uk/reso

urce/view.aspx?RID=9

5375

-

Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l
-

http://tinyurl.com/b

8m9wh8

-



TAP (fluoridated) WATER CAN MAKE YOU FAT, SAY EXPERTS

Jul 11 2004.

By Caroline Wheeler, Sunday Mercury.

Medical experts claim that West Midlands tap water can make people FAT and could be fuelling rising obesity levels.

For the past 40 years, fluoride has been pumped into the region's tap water to help keep teeth healthy.

But now a top doctor claims that the toxin can cause worrying health side-effects including hypothyroidism, a medical dis-order affecting the thyroid gland which controls weight gain.

And he believes that children may be particularly susceptible to obesity if their mums drank fluoridated water while pregnant.

LAST YEAR, THE WEST MIDLANDS TOPPED THE UK 'FAT LIST' WITH A SHOCKING 22.5 PER CENT OF ITS POPULATION CLASSED CLINICALLY OBESE.

Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield said: "There is no doubt that fluoride is enzyme disruptive and one thing it affects is thyroid hormones.

"As a result of this disruption, people can finish up with partial under-activity of the thyroid gland.

"Thyroid problems are becoming more common, particularly in Birmingham, and one of the reasons is because of fluoride in the water."

-


http://tinyurl.com/a

jtcvgm
Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than Southampton/England


-

Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.



Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than the England Average.


Southampton, the numbers of over-65s with hip fractures are not significantly different from the England average.

-

www.apho.org.uk/reso
urce/view.aspx?RID=9
5375

-

Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l

-

http://tinyurl.com/b
8m9wh8

-



THE CRIPPLING (FLUORIDE )TOXIN YOU KNOWINGLY CONSUME EVERY DAY...

August 10, 2011

The fact that fluoride can damage your bones, often quite seriously, is no longer in dispute. Just ask the millions of people throughout the world who currently suffer from skeletal fluorosis—a crippling bone disease caused by too much fluoride and marked by irregular bone growth and calcification of the joints.


Of course, it takes a high dose of fluoride to cause crippling fluorosis.

BUT FLUORIDE ACCUMULATES OVER TIME, SO THE SEVERITY OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS EXISTS ALONG A CONTINUUM, WITH THE EARLIER STAGES PRODUCED BY LOWER DOSES AND MARKED BY MORE SUBTLE SYMPTOMS, SUCH AS JOINT PAIN AND STIFFNESS.

In 2006, skeletal fluorosis was identified by the US National Research Council (NRC) as an adverse effect that needs to be considered by the EPA when lowering the maximum safe level of fluoride in water. While case studies in recent years have documented advanced skeletal fluorosis in the US among high-tea drinkers, the EPA has done no serious analysis of the extent to which the disease may be occurring throughout the country.

-

http://articles.merc
ola.com/sites/articl
es/archive/2011/08/1
0/fluoride-can-damag
e-your-bones.aspx
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Cairns Council Votes To Dump Fluoride.. Amounts To "Involuntary Medication" .. - Cairns council votes to dump fluoride.. Date.January 30, 2013 - 12:14PM. The Cairns City Council will remove fluoride from its water supply, saying it amounts to the "involuntary medication" of residents. But the council says it won't be doing anything to determine if there's broad community support for fluoridation to continue. "If people want to have access to fluoride, they need to take that up with their dentists," a council spokeswoman said on Wednesday. "The decision has been made ... it shouldn't be forced on people without consent." Fluoridation currently cost the council about $300,000 in chemicals, staffing, testing, electricity and infrastructure, he said. Fluoride will stop being added to the Cairns water supply from the middle of next month. - http://www.brisbanet imes.com.au/queensla nd/cairns-council-vo tes-to-dump-fluoride -20130130-2dk1a.html[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. - THE TEETH OF SOUTHAMPTON'S 5 YEAR OLD'S ARE GENERALLY BETTER THAN THE ENGLAND AVERAGE. In fact tooth decay in our close neighbors 5 year old's, MILTON KEYNES, Reading & Slough are significantly worse than the England average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Here's the killer, MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated.. 1.0 to 1.5 mg/f which is above recommended fluoridation levels - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than Southampton's. - Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than SHA's Average. Southampton's Adult Obesity is Not Significantly different from SHA's Average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8 - TAP (fluoridated) WATER CAN MAKE YOU FAT, SAY EXPERTS Jul 11 2004. By Caroline Wheeler, Sunday Mercury. Medical experts claim that West Midlands tap water can make people FAT and could be fuelling rising obesity levels. For the past 40 years, fluoride has been pumped into the region's tap water to help keep teeth healthy. But now a top doctor claims that the toxin can cause worrying health side-effects including hypothyroidism, a medical dis-order affecting the thyroid gland which controls weight gain. And he believes that children may be particularly susceptible to obesity if their mums drank fluoridated water while pregnant. LAST YEAR, THE WEST MIDLANDS TOPPED THE UK 'FAT LIST' WITH A SHOCKING 22.5 PER CENT OF ITS POPULATION CLASSED CLINICALLY OBESE. Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield said: "There is no doubt that fluoride is enzyme disruptive and one thing it affects is thyroid hormones. "As a result of this disruption, people can finish up with partial under-activity of the thyroid gland. "Thyroid problems are becoming more common, particularly in Birmingham, and one of the reasons is because of fluoride in the water." - http://tinyurl.com/a jtcvgm[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than Southampton/England - Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than the England Average. Southampton, the numbers of over-65s with hip fractures are not significantly different from the England average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8 - THE CRIPPLING (FLUORIDE )TOXIN YOU KNOWINGLY CONSUME EVERY DAY... August 10, 2011 The fact that fluoride can damage your bones, often quite seriously, is no longer in dispute. Just ask the millions of people throughout the world who currently suffer from skeletal fluorosis—a crippling bone disease caused by too much fluoride and marked by irregular bone growth and calcification of the joints. Of course, it takes a high dose of fluoride to cause crippling fluorosis. BUT FLUORIDE ACCUMULATES OVER TIME, SO THE SEVERITY OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS EXISTS ALONG A CONTINUUM, WITH THE EARLIER STAGES PRODUCED BY LOWER DOSES AND MARKED BY MORE SUBTLE SYMPTOMS, SUCH AS JOINT PAIN AND STIFFNESS. In 2006, skeletal fluorosis was identified by the US National Research Council (NRC) as an adverse effect that needs to be considered by the EPA when lowering the maximum safe level of fluoride in water. While case studies in recent years have documented advanced skeletal fluorosis in the US among high-tea drinkers, the EPA has done no serious analysis of the extent to which the disease may be occurring throughout the country. - http://articles.merc ola.com/sites/articl es/archive/2011/08/1 0/fluoride-can-damag e-your-bones.aspx Dan Soton

6:54pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Cairns Council Votes To Dump Fluoride.. Amounts To "Involuntary Medication" ..


-


Cairns council votes to dump fluoride..

Date.January 30, 2013 - 12:14PM.

The Cairns City Council will remove fluoride from its water supply, saying it amounts to the "involuntary medication" of residents.

But the council says it won't be doing anything to determine if there's broad community support for fluoridation to continue.

"If people want to have access to fluoride, they need to take that up with their dentists," a council spokeswoman said on Wednesday.

"The decision has been made ... it shouldn't be forced on people without consent."

Fluoridation currently cost the council about $300,000 in chemicals, staffing, testing, electricity and infrastructure, he said.

Fluoride will stop being added to the Cairns water supply from the middle of next month.

-


http://www.brisbanet




imes.com.au/queensla




nd/cairns-council-vo




tes-to-dump-fluoride




-20130130-2dk1a.html
Fluoridation X-Files.. Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.

-


THE TEETH OF SOUTHAMPTON'S 5 YEAR OLD'S ARE GENERALLY BETTER THAN THE ENGLAND AVERAGE.

In fact tooth decay in our close neighbors 5 year old's, MILTON KEYNES, Reading & Slough are significantly worse than the England average.

-


www.apho.org.uk/reso



urce/view.aspx?RID=9



5375
-



Here's the killer, MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated.. 1.0 to 1.5 mg/f which is above recommended fluoridation levels

-

http://tinyurl.com/b



8m9wh8
Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than Southampton's.


-

Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.



Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than SHA's Average.


Southampton's Adult Obesity is Not Significantly different from SHA's Average.


-

www.apho.org.uk/reso


urce/view.aspx?RID=9


5375

-

Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l
-

http://tinyurl.com/b


8m9wh8

-



TAP (fluoridated) WATER CAN MAKE YOU FAT, SAY EXPERTS

Jul 11 2004.

By Caroline Wheeler, Sunday Mercury.

Medical experts claim that West Midlands tap water can make people FAT and could be fuelling rising obesity levels.

For the past 40 years, fluoride has been pumped into the region's tap water to help keep teeth healthy.

But now a top doctor claims that the toxin can cause worrying health side-effects including hypothyroidism, a medical dis-order affecting the thyroid gland which controls weight gain.

And he believes that children may be particularly susceptible to obesity if their mums drank fluoridated water while pregnant.

LAST YEAR, THE WEST MIDLANDS TOPPED THE UK 'FAT LIST' WITH A SHOCKING 22.5 PER CENT OF ITS POPULATION CLASSED CLINICALLY OBESE.

Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield said: "There is no doubt that fluoride is enzyme disruptive and one thing it affects is thyroid hormones.

"As a result of this disruption, people can finish up with partial under-activity of the thyroid gland.

"Thyroid problems are becoming more common, particularly in Birmingham, and one of the reasons is because of fluoride in the water."

-


http://tinyurl.com/a


jtcvgm
Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than Southampton/England


-

Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.



Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than the England Average.


Southampton, the numbers of over-65s with hip fractures are not significantly different from the England average.

-

www.apho.org.uk/reso

urce/view.aspx?RID=9

5375

-

Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l

-

http://tinyurl.com/b

8m9wh8

-



THE CRIPPLING (FLUORIDE )TOXIN YOU KNOWINGLY CONSUME EVERY DAY...

August 10, 2011

The fact that fluoride can damage your bones, often quite seriously, is no longer in dispute. Just ask the millions of people throughout the world who currently suffer from skeletal fluorosis—a crippling bone disease caused by too much fluoride and marked by irregular bone growth and calcification of the joints.


Of course, it takes a high dose of fluoride to cause crippling fluorosis.

BUT FLUORIDE ACCUMULATES OVER TIME, SO THE SEVERITY OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS EXISTS ALONG A CONTINUUM, WITH THE EARLIER STAGES PRODUCED BY LOWER DOSES AND MARKED BY MORE SUBTLE SYMPTOMS, SUCH AS JOINT PAIN AND STIFFNESS.

In 2006, skeletal fluorosis was identified by the US National Research Council (NRC) as an adverse effect that needs to be considered by the EPA when lowering the maximum safe level of fluoride in water. While case studies in recent years have documented advanced skeletal fluorosis in the US among high-tea drinkers, the EPA has done no serious analysis of the extent to which the disease may be occurring throughout the country.

-

http://articles.merc

ola.com/sites/articl

es/archive/2011/08/1

0/fluoride-can-damag

e-your-bones.aspx
Fluoridation X-Files.. 60% of all U.S. Children have Dental Fluorosis.. 3% to 4% expected in Southampton?



-

SHA's OWN RESEARCH REVIEW.

The Medical Research Council, when reviewing the York report and taking account of other studies, concluded that a more realistic figure for fluorosis in fluoridated areas within the UK might be between 3% and 4%.

http://tinyurl.com/b
6ewake

-



FLUORIDATION IS NOTHING TO CELEBRATE.

NEW YORK, Jan. 23, 2013.

Fluoride overexposure is a new and GROWING EPIDEMIC AFFLICTING UP TO 60% OF U.S. ADOLESCENTS WITH DENTAL FLUOROSIS (white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth). Early fluoridationists expected that no more than 10% of children would develop mild fluorosis. CDC reports that Black and Mexican-American children suffer significantly higher rates of the more severe forms of dental fluorosis.

Even fluoride varnish, containing 26,600 ppm fluoride, was never safety-tested but is applied to teeth of babies as young as 6-months-old which "leads to a significant increase in urine fluoride."


-

http://www.prnewswir
e.com/news-releases/
fluoridation-is-noth
ing-to-celebrate-188
045531.html
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Cairns Council Votes To Dump Fluoride.. Amounts To "Involuntary Medication" .. - Cairns council votes to dump fluoride.. Date.January 30, 2013 - 12:14PM. The Cairns City Council will remove fluoride from its water supply, saying it amounts to the "involuntary medication" of residents. But the council says it won't be doing anything to determine if there's broad community support for fluoridation to continue. "If people want to have access to fluoride, they need to take that up with their dentists," a council spokeswoman said on Wednesday. "The decision has been made ... it shouldn't be forced on people without consent." Fluoridation currently cost the council about $300,000 in chemicals, staffing, testing, electricity and infrastructure, he said. Fluoride will stop being added to the Cairns water supply from the middle of next month. - http://www.brisbanet imes.com.au/queensla nd/cairns-council-vo tes-to-dump-fluoride -20130130-2dk1a.html[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. - THE TEETH OF SOUTHAMPTON'S 5 YEAR OLD'S ARE GENERALLY BETTER THAN THE ENGLAND AVERAGE. In fact tooth decay in our close neighbors 5 year old's, MILTON KEYNES, Reading & Slough are significantly worse than the England average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Here's the killer, MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated.. 1.0 to 1.5 mg/f which is above recommended fluoridation levels - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than Southampton's. - Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than SHA's Average. Southampton's Adult Obesity is Not Significantly different from SHA's Average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8 - TAP (fluoridated) WATER CAN MAKE YOU FAT, SAY EXPERTS Jul 11 2004. By Caroline Wheeler, Sunday Mercury. Medical experts claim that West Midlands tap water can make people FAT and could be fuelling rising obesity levels. For the past 40 years, fluoride has been pumped into the region's tap water to help keep teeth healthy. But now a top doctor claims that the toxin can cause worrying health side-effects including hypothyroidism, a medical dis-order affecting the thyroid gland which controls weight gain. And he believes that children may be particularly susceptible to obesity if their mums drank fluoridated water while pregnant. LAST YEAR, THE WEST MIDLANDS TOPPED THE UK 'FAT LIST' WITH A SHOCKING 22.5 PER CENT OF ITS POPULATION CLASSED CLINICALLY OBESE. Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield said: "There is no doubt that fluoride is enzyme disruptive and one thing it affects is thyroid hormones. "As a result of this disruption, people can finish up with partial under-activity of the thyroid gland. "Thyroid problems are becoming more common, particularly in Birmingham, and one of the reasons is because of fluoride in the water." - http://tinyurl.com/a jtcvgm[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than Southampton/England - Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than the England Average. Southampton, the numbers of over-65s with hip fractures are not significantly different from the England average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8 - THE CRIPPLING (FLUORIDE )TOXIN YOU KNOWINGLY CONSUME EVERY DAY... August 10, 2011 The fact that fluoride can damage your bones, often quite seriously, is no longer in dispute. Just ask the millions of people throughout the world who currently suffer from skeletal fluorosis—a crippling bone disease caused by too much fluoride and marked by irregular bone growth and calcification of the joints. Of course, it takes a high dose of fluoride to cause crippling fluorosis. BUT FLUORIDE ACCUMULATES OVER TIME, SO THE SEVERITY OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS EXISTS ALONG A CONTINUUM, WITH THE EARLIER STAGES PRODUCED BY LOWER DOSES AND MARKED BY MORE SUBTLE SYMPTOMS, SUCH AS JOINT PAIN AND STIFFNESS. In 2006, skeletal fluorosis was identified by the US National Research Council (NRC) as an adverse effect that needs to be considered by the EPA when lowering the maximum safe level of fluoride in water. While case studies in recent years have documented advanced skeletal fluorosis in the US among high-tea drinkers, the EPA has done no serious analysis of the extent to which the disease may be occurring throughout the country. - http://articles.merc ola.com/sites/articl es/archive/2011/08/1 0/fluoride-can-damag e-your-bones.aspx[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. 60% of all U.S. Children have Dental Fluorosis.. 3% to 4% expected in Southampton? - SHA's OWN RESEARCH REVIEW. The Medical Research Council, when reviewing the York report and taking account of other studies, concluded that a more realistic figure for fluorosis in fluoridated areas within the UK might be between 3% and 4%. http://tinyurl.com/b 6ewake - FLUORIDATION IS NOTHING TO CELEBRATE. NEW YORK, Jan. 23, 2013. Fluoride overexposure is a new and GROWING EPIDEMIC AFFLICTING UP TO 60% OF U.S. ADOLESCENTS WITH DENTAL FLUOROSIS (white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth). Early fluoridationists expected that no more than 10% of children would develop mild fluorosis. CDC reports that Black and Mexican-American children suffer significantly higher rates of the more severe forms of dental fluorosis. Even fluoride varnish, containing 26,600 ppm fluoride, was never safety-tested but is applied to teeth of babies as young as 6-months-old which "leads to a significant increase in urine fluoride." - http://www.prnewswir e.com/news-releases/ fluoridation-is-noth ing-to-celebrate-188 045531.html Dan Soton

3:55am Thu 7 Feb 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Cairns Council Votes To Dump Fluoride.. Amounts To "Involuntary Medication" ..


-


Cairns council votes to dump fluoride..

Date.January 30, 2013 - 12:14PM.

The Cairns City Council will remove fluoride from its water supply, saying it amounts to the "involuntary medication" of residents.

But the council says it won't be doing anything to determine if there's broad community support for fluoridation to continue.

"If people want to have access to fluoride, they need to take that up with their dentists," a council spokeswoman said on Wednesday.

"The decision has been made ... it shouldn't be forced on people without consent."

Fluoridation currently cost the council about $300,000 in chemicals, staffing, testing, electricity and infrastructure, he said.

Fluoride will stop being added to the Cairns water supply from the middle of next month.

-


http://www.brisbanet





imes.com.au/queensla





nd/cairns-council-vo





tes-to-dump-fluoride





-20130130-2dk1a.html
Fluoridation X-Files.. Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.

-


THE TEETH OF SOUTHAMPTON'S 5 YEAR OLD'S ARE GENERALLY BETTER THAN THE ENGLAND AVERAGE.

In fact tooth decay in our close neighbors 5 year old's, MILTON KEYNES, Reading & Slough are significantly worse than the England average.

-


www.apho.org.uk/reso




urce/view.aspx?RID=9




5375
-



Here's the killer, MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated.. 1.0 to 1.5 mg/f which is above recommended fluoridation levels

-

http://tinyurl.com/b




8m9wh8
Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than Southampton's.


-

Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.



Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than SHA's Average.


Southampton's Adult Obesity is Not Significantly different from SHA's Average.


-

www.apho.org.uk/reso



urce/view.aspx?RID=9



5375

-

Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l
-

http://tinyurl.com/b



8m9wh8

-



TAP (fluoridated) WATER CAN MAKE YOU FAT, SAY EXPERTS

Jul 11 2004.

By Caroline Wheeler, Sunday Mercury.

Medical experts claim that West Midlands tap water can make people FAT and could be fuelling rising obesity levels.

For the past 40 years, fluoride has been pumped into the region's tap water to help keep teeth healthy.

But now a top doctor claims that the toxin can cause worrying health side-effects including hypothyroidism, a medical dis-order affecting the thyroid gland which controls weight gain.

And he believes that children may be particularly susceptible to obesity if their mums drank fluoridated water while pregnant.

LAST YEAR, THE WEST MIDLANDS TOPPED THE UK 'FAT LIST' WITH A SHOCKING 22.5 PER CENT OF ITS POPULATION CLASSED CLINICALLY OBESE.

Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield said: "There is no doubt that fluoride is enzyme disruptive and one thing it affects is thyroid hormones.

"As a result of this disruption, people can finish up with partial under-activity of the thyroid gland.

"Thyroid problems are becoming more common, particularly in Birmingham, and one of the reasons is because of fluoride in the water."

-


http://tinyurl.com/a



jtcvgm
Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than Southampton/England


-

Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.



Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than the England Average.


Southampton, the numbers of over-65s with hip fractures are not significantly different from the England average.

-

www.apho.org.uk/reso


urce/view.aspx?RID=9


5375

-

Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l

-

http://tinyurl.com/b


8m9wh8

-



THE CRIPPLING (FLUORIDE )TOXIN YOU KNOWINGLY CONSUME EVERY DAY...

August 10, 2011

The fact that fluoride can damage your bones, often quite seriously, is no longer in dispute. Just ask the millions of people throughout the world who currently suffer from skeletal fluorosis—a crippling bone disease caused by too much fluoride and marked by irregular bone growth and calcification of the joints.


Of course, it takes a high dose of fluoride to cause crippling fluorosis.

BUT FLUORIDE ACCUMULATES OVER TIME, SO THE SEVERITY OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS EXISTS ALONG A CONTINUUM, WITH THE EARLIER STAGES PRODUCED BY LOWER DOSES AND MARKED BY MORE SUBTLE SYMPTOMS, SUCH AS JOINT PAIN AND STIFFNESS.

In 2006, skeletal fluorosis was identified by the US National Research Council (NRC) as an adverse effect that needs to be considered by the EPA when lowering the maximum safe level of fluoride in water. While case studies in recent years have documented advanced skeletal fluorosis in the US among high-tea drinkers, the EPA has done no serious analysis of the extent to which the disease may be occurring throughout the country.

-

http://articles.merc


ola.com/sites/articl


es/archive/2011/08/1


0/fluoride-can-damag


e-your-bones.aspx
Fluoridation X-Files.. 60% of all U.S. Children have Dental Fluorosis.. 3% to 4% expected in Southampton?



-

SHA's OWN RESEARCH REVIEW.

The Medical Research Council, when reviewing the York report and taking account of other studies, concluded that a more realistic figure for fluorosis in fluoridated areas within the UK might be between 3% and 4%.

http://tinyurl.com/b

6ewake

-



FLUORIDATION IS NOTHING TO CELEBRATE.

NEW YORK, Jan. 23, 2013.

Fluoride overexposure is a new and GROWING EPIDEMIC AFFLICTING UP TO 60% OF U.S. ADOLESCENTS WITH DENTAL FLUOROSIS (white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth). Early fluoridationists expected that no more than 10% of children would develop mild fluorosis. CDC reports that Black and Mexican-American children suffer significantly higher rates of the more severe forms of dental fluorosis.

Even fluoride varnish, containing 26,600 ppm fluoride, was never safety-tested but is applied to teeth of babies as young as 6-months-old which "leads to a significant increase in urine fluoride."


-

http://www.prnewswir

e.com/news-releases/

fluoridation-is-noth

ing-to-celebrate-188

045531.html
Fluoridation X-Files.. Criminal SHA Bosses to be held responsible for deaths of relatives


-

A date which will live in infamy.. 11 Feb 2011, SHA defeated a High Court legal challenge designed to stop Southampton's Fluoridation.


-


FAMILIES CALL FOR BOSSES TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DEATHS OF RELATIVES.

JONATHAN BROWN WEDNESDAY 06 FEBRUARY 2013.

NHS's darkest day: Five more hospitals under investigation for neglect as report blames 'failings at every level' for 1,200 deaths at Stafford Hospital.

The families of patients who died after receiving substandard care at Stafford Hospital have demanded that senior managers – including the current head of the NHS – be held responsible for the deaths of their loved ones.

Families called for the resignation of Sir David Nicholson, NHS chief executive, who was head of Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority which was responsible for Mid Staffs NHS Trust at the time of the scandal. Some also demanded the head of Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, after the report’s damning verdict on nursing standards.

“The point about criminal prosecution, which I think most people feel, is that perhaps more than a thousand people died because of poor care. No one has been brought to book and that feels wrong,” he told Sky News.

Sir David Nicholson.

Former chief executive of West Midlands Strategic Health Authority and the Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority. He was responsible for supervising Mid Staffs NHS Trust from 2005 to 2006. Yesterday he repeated his apology for the poor care experienced by patients, adding: “But apologies are not enough – we need action, we need to make things happen.”

Cynthia Bower Former chief executive of West Midlands Strategic Health Authority.

The report concluded that Ms Bower’s priorities were directed at finance and restructuring rather than care. “The protection of patients does not figure expressly at all in her priorities, although she would doubtless argue that such a concept underlay all of them,” it found.

Martin Yeates Former chief executive of Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust.

Salary: £180,000.

The report said he failed to appreciate the seriousness of the Trust’s problems and the significance of the mortality figures. "HE WAS THAT MOST DANGEROUS OF LEADERS: ONE WHO WAS PERSUASIVE BUT INEFFECTIVE," IT SAID. RECEIVED £400,000 PAY-OFF AND £1M PENSION POT.

-

http://tinyurl.com/b
4y69cx
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Cairns Council Votes To Dump Fluoride.. Amounts To "Involuntary Medication" .. - Cairns council votes to dump fluoride.. Date.January 30, 2013 - 12:14PM. The Cairns City Council will remove fluoride from its water supply, saying it amounts to the "involuntary medication" of residents. But the council says it won't be doing anything to determine if there's broad community support for fluoridation to continue. "If people want to have access to fluoride, they need to take that up with their dentists," a council spokeswoman said on Wednesday. "The decision has been made ... it shouldn't be forced on people without consent." Fluoridation currently cost the council about $300,000 in chemicals, staffing, testing, electricity and infrastructure, he said. Fluoride will stop being added to the Cairns water supply from the middle of next month. - http://www.brisbanet imes.com.au/queensla nd/cairns-council-vo tes-to-dump-fluoride -20130130-2dk1a.html[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. - THE TEETH OF SOUTHAMPTON'S 5 YEAR OLD'S ARE GENERALLY BETTER THAN THE ENGLAND AVERAGE. In fact tooth decay in our close neighbors 5 year old's, MILTON KEYNES, Reading & Slough are significantly worse than the England average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Here's the killer, MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated.. 1.0 to 1.5 mg/f which is above recommended fluoridation levels - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than Southampton's. - Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than SHA's Average. Southampton's Adult Obesity is Not Significantly different from SHA's Average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8 - TAP (fluoridated) WATER CAN MAKE YOU FAT, SAY EXPERTS Jul 11 2004. By Caroline Wheeler, Sunday Mercury. Medical experts claim that West Midlands tap water can make people FAT and could be fuelling rising obesity levels. For the past 40 years, fluoride has been pumped into the region's tap water to help keep teeth healthy. But now a top doctor claims that the toxin can cause worrying health side-effects including hypothyroidism, a medical dis-order affecting the thyroid gland which controls weight gain. And he believes that children may be particularly susceptible to obesity if their mums drank fluoridated water while pregnant. LAST YEAR, THE WEST MIDLANDS TOPPED THE UK 'FAT LIST' WITH A SHOCKING 22.5 PER CENT OF ITS POPULATION CLASSED CLINICALLY OBESE. Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield said: "There is no doubt that fluoride is enzyme disruptive and one thing it affects is thyroid hormones. "As a result of this disruption, people can finish up with partial under-activity of the thyroid gland. "Thyroid problems are becoming more common, particularly in Birmingham, and one of the reasons is because of fluoride in the water." - http://tinyurl.com/a jtcvgm[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than Southampton/England - Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than the England Average. Southampton, the numbers of over-65s with hip fractures are not significantly different from the England average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8 - THE CRIPPLING (FLUORIDE )TOXIN YOU KNOWINGLY CONSUME EVERY DAY... August 10, 2011 The fact that fluoride can damage your bones, often quite seriously, is no longer in dispute. Just ask the millions of people throughout the world who currently suffer from skeletal fluorosis—a crippling bone disease caused by too much fluoride and marked by irregular bone growth and calcification of the joints. Of course, it takes a high dose of fluoride to cause crippling fluorosis. BUT FLUORIDE ACCUMULATES OVER TIME, SO THE SEVERITY OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS EXISTS ALONG A CONTINUUM, WITH THE EARLIER STAGES PRODUCED BY LOWER DOSES AND MARKED BY MORE SUBTLE SYMPTOMS, SUCH AS JOINT PAIN AND STIFFNESS. In 2006, skeletal fluorosis was identified by the US National Research Council (NRC) as an adverse effect that needs to be considered by the EPA when lowering the maximum safe level of fluoride in water. While case studies in recent years have documented advanced skeletal fluorosis in the US among high-tea drinkers, the EPA has done no serious analysis of the extent to which the disease may be occurring throughout the country. - http://articles.merc ola.com/sites/articl es/archive/2011/08/1 0/fluoride-can-damag e-your-bones.aspx[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. 60% of all U.S. Children have Dental Fluorosis.. 3% to 4% expected in Southampton? - SHA's OWN RESEARCH REVIEW. The Medical Research Council, when reviewing the York report and taking account of other studies, concluded that a more realistic figure for fluorosis in fluoridated areas within the UK might be between 3% and 4%. http://tinyurl.com/b 6ewake - FLUORIDATION IS NOTHING TO CELEBRATE. NEW YORK, Jan. 23, 2013. Fluoride overexposure is a new and GROWING EPIDEMIC AFFLICTING UP TO 60% OF U.S. ADOLESCENTS WITH DENTAL FLUOROSIS (white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth). Early fluoridationists expected that no more than 10% of children would develop mild fluorosis. CDC reports that Black and Mexican-American children suffer significantly higher rates of the more severe forms of dental fluorosis. Even fluoride varnish, containing 26,600 ppm fluoride, was never safety-tested but is applied to teeth of babies as young as 6-months-old which "leads to a significant increase in urine fluoride." - http://www.prnewswir e.com/news-releases/ fluoridation-is-noth ing-to-celebrate-188 045531.html[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. Criminal SHA Bosses to be held responsible for deaths of relatives - A date which will live in infamy.. 11 Feb 2011, SHA defeated a High Court legal challenge designed to stop Southampton's Fluoridation. - FAMILIES CALL FOR BOSSES TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DEATHS OF RELATIVES. JONATHAN BROWN WEDNESDAY 06 FEBRUARY 2013. NHS's darkest day: Five more hospitals under investigation for neglect as report blames 'failings at every level' for 1,200 deaths at Stafford Hospital. The families of patients who died after receiving substandard care at Stafford Hospital have demanded that senior managers – including the current head of the NHS – be held responsible for the deaths of their loved ones. Families called for the resignation of Sir David Nicholson, NHS chief executive, who was head of Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority which was responsible for Mid Staffs NHS Trust at the time of the scandal. Some also demanded the head of Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, after the report’s damning verdict on nursing standards. “The point about criminal prosecution, which I think most people feel, is that perhaps more than a thousand people died because of poor care. No one has been brought to book and that feels wrong,” he told Sky News. Sir David Nicholson. Former chief executive of West Midlands Strategic Health Authority and the Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority. He was responsible for supervising Mid Staffs NHS Trust from 2005 to 2006. Yesterday he repeated his apology for the poor care experienced by patients, adding: “But apologies are not enough – we need action, we need to make things happen.” Cynthia Bower Former chief executive of West Midlands Strategic Health Authority. The report concluded that Ms Bower’s priorities were directed at finance and restructuring rather than care. “The protection of patients does not figure expressly at all in her priorities, although she would doubtless argue that such a concept underlay all of them,” it found. Martin Yeates Former chief executive of Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust. Salary: £180,000. The report said he failed to appreciate the seriousness of the Trust’s problems and the significance of the mortality figures. "HE WAS THAT MOST DANGEROUS OF LEADERS: ONE WHO WAS PERSUASIVE BUT INEFFECTIVE," IT SAID. RECEIVED £400,000 PAY-OFF AND £1M PENSION POT. - http://tinyurl.com/b 4y69cx Dan Soton

11:35pm Sun 10 Feb 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Cairns Council Votes To Dump Fluoride.. Amounts To "Involuntary Medication" ..


-


Cairns council votes to dump fluoride..

Date.January 30, 2013 - 12:14PM.

The Cairns City Council will remove fluoride from its water supply, saying it amounts to the "involuntary medication" of residents.

But the council says it won't be doing anything to determine if there's broad community support for fluoridation to continue.

"If people want to have access to fluoride, they need to take that up with their dentists," a council spokeswoman said on Wednesday.

"The decision has been made ... it shouldn't be forced on people without consent."

Fluoridation currently cost the council about $300,000 in chemicals, staffing, testing, electricity and infrastructure, he said.

Fluoride will stop being added to the Cairns water supply from the middle of next month.

-


http://www.brisbanet






imes.com.au/queensla






nd/cairns-council-vo






tes-to-dump-fluoride






-20130130-2dk1a.html
Fluoridation X-Files.. Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.

-


THE TEETH OF SOUTHAMPTON'S 5 YEAR OLD'S ARE GENERALLY BETTER THAN THE ENGLAND AVERAGE.

In fact tooth decay in our close neighbors 5 year old's, MILTON KEYNES, Reading & Slough are significantly worse than the England average.

-


www.apho.org.uk/reso





urce/view.aspx?RID=9





5375
-



Here's the killer, MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated.. 1.0 to 1.5 mg/f which is above recommended fluoridation levels

-

http://tinyurl.com/b





8m9wh8
Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than Southampton's.


-

Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.



Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than SHA's Average.


Southampton's Adult Obesity is Not Significantly different from SHA's Average.


-

www.apho.org.uk/reso




urce/view.aspx?RID=9




5375

-

Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l
-

http://tinyurl.com/b




8m9wh8

-



TAP (fluoridated) WATER CAN MAKE YOU FAT, SAY EXPERTS

Jul 11 2004.

By Caroline Wheeler, Sunday Mercury.

Medical experts claim that West Midlands tap water can make people FAT and could be fuelling rising obesity levels.

For the past 40 years, fluoride has been pumped into the region's tap water to help keep teeth healthy.

But now a top doctor claims that the toxin can cause worrying health side-effects including hypothyroidism, a medical dis-order affecting the thyroid gland which controls weight gain.

And he believes that children may be particularly susceptible to obesity if their mums drank fluoridated water while pregnant.

LAST YEAR, THE WEST MIDLANDS TOPPED THE UK 'FAT LIST' WITH A SHOCKING 22.5 PER CENT OF ITS POPULATION CLASSED CLINICALLY OBESE.

Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield said: "There is no doubt that fluoride is enzyme disruptive and one thing it affects is thyroid hormones.

"As a result of this disruption, people can finish up with partial under-activity of the thyroid gland.

"Thyroid problems are becoming more common, particularly in Birmingham, and one of the reasons is because of fluoride in the water."

-


http://tinyurl.com/a




jtcvgm
Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than Southampton/England


-

Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.



Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than the England Average.


Southampton, the numbers of over-65s with hip fractures are not significantly different from the England average.

-

www.apho.org.uk/reso



urce/view.aspx?RID=9



5375

-

Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l

-

http://tinyurl.com/b



8m9wh8

-



THE CRIPPLING (FLUORIDE )TOXIN YOU KNOWINGLY CONSUME EVERY DAY...

August 10, 2011

The fact that fluoride can damage your bones, often quite seriously, is no longer in dispute. Just ask the millions of people throughout the world who currently suffer from skeletal fluorosis—a crippling bone disease caused by too much fluoride and marked by irregular bone growth and calcification of the joints.


Of course, it takes a high dose of fluoride to cause crippling fluorosis.

BUT FLUORIDE ACCUMULATES OVER TIME, SO THE SEVERITY OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS EXISTS ALONG A CONTINUUM, WITH THE EARLIER STAGES PRODUCED BY LOWER DOSES AND MARKED BY MORE SUBTLE SYMPTOMS, SUCH AS JOINT PAIN AND STIFFNESS.

In 2006, skeletal fluorosis was identified by the US National Research Council (NRC) as an adverse effect that needs to be considered by the EPA when lowering the maximum safe level of fluoride in water. While case studies in recent years have documented advanced skeletal fluorosis in the US among high-tea drinkers, the EPA has done no serious analysis of the extent to which the disease may be occurring throughout the country.

-

http://articles.merc



ola.com/sites/articl



es/archive/2011/08/1



0/fluoride-can-damag



e-your-bones.aspx
Fluoridation X-Files.. 60% of all U.S. Children have Dental Fluorosis.. 3% to 4% expected in Southampton?



-

SHA's OWN RESEARCH REVIEW.

The Medical Research Council, when reviewing the York report and taking account of other studies, concluded that a more realistic figure for fluorosis in fluoridated areas within the UK might be between 3% and 4%.

http://tinyurl.com/b


6ewake

-



FLUORIDATION IS NOTHING TO CELEBRATE.

NEW YORK, Jan. 23, 2013.

Fluoride overexposure is a new and GROWING EPIDEMIC AFFLICTING UP TO 60% OF U.S. ADOLESCENTS WITH DENTAL FLUOROSIS (white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth). Early fluoridationists expected that no more than 10% of children would develop mild fluorosis. CDC reports that Black and Mexican-American children suffer significantly higher rates of the more severe forms of dental fluorosis.

Even fluoride varnish, containing 26,600 ppm fluoride, was never safety-tested but is applied to teeth of babies as young as 6-months-old which "leads to a significant increase in urine fluoride."


-

http://www.prnewswir


e.com/news-releases/


fluoridation-is-noth


ing-to-celebrate-188


045531.html
Fluoridation X-Files.. Criminal SHA Bosses to be held responsible for deaths of relatives


-

A date which will live in infamy.. 11 Feb 2011, SHA defeated a High Court legal challenge designed to stop Southampton's Fluoridation.


-


FAMILIES CALL FOR BOSSES TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DEATHS OF RELATIVES.

JONATHAN BROWN WEDNESDAY 06 FEBRUARY 2013.

NHS's darkest day: Five more hospitals under investigation for neglect as report blames 'failings at every level' for 1,200 deaths at Stafford Hospital.

The families of patients who died after receiving substandard care at Stafford Hospital have demanded that senior managers – including the current head of the NHS – be held responsible for the deaths of their loved ones.

Families called for the resignation of Sir David Nicholson, NHS chief executive, who was head of Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority which was responsible for Mid Staffs NHS Trust at the time of the scandal. Some also demanded the head of Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, after the report’s damning verdict on nursing standards.

“The point about criminal prosecution, which I think most people feel, is that perhaps more than a thousand people died because of poor care. No one has been brought to book and that feels wrong,” he told Sky News.

Sir David Nicholson.

Former chief executive of West Midlands Strategic Health Authority and the Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority. He was responsible for supervising Mid Staffs NHS Trust from 2005 to 2006. Yesterday he repeated his apology for the poor care experienced by patients, adding: “But apologies are not enough – we need action, we need to make things happen.”

Cynthia Bower Former chief executive of West Midlands Strategic Health Authority.

The report concluded that Ms Bower’s priorities were directed at finance and restructuring rather than care. “The protection of patients does not figure expressly at all in her priorities, although she would doubtless argue that such a concept underlay all of them,” it found.

Martin Yeates Former chief executive of Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust.

Salary: £180,000.

The report said he failed to appreciate the seriousness of the Trust’s problems and the significance of the mortality figures. "HE WAS THAT MOST DANGEROUS OF LEADERS: ONE WHO WAS PERSUASIVE BUT INEFFECTIVE," IT SAID. RECEIVED £400,000 PAY-OFF AND £1M PENSION POT.

-

http://tinyurl.com/b

4y69cx
Fluoridation X-Files.. SHAs Ignore Warnings & Manipulate Statistics


-

Just my unqualified opinion.. the truth will never see the light of day until all SHA Bosses are held legally culpable for their actions.

going by recent news reports this is just the tip of a pyramid of healthcare negligence.

-


I WARNED STAFFORD BOSSES OF HIGH DEATH RATES, CLAIMS PROFESSOR

By Rosa Silverman8:28AM GMT 18 Jan.

The hospital became engulfed in a scandal after an investigation uncovered up to 1,200 "excess" deaths and a catalogue of failings in patient care between 2005 and 2008.

On a number of occasions from July 2007 onwards, the chief executive of the Mid Staffs Health Care Trust, to which the hospital belonged, had been told in writing that the number of deaths at the hospital appeared high, it was claimed.

THE WARNINGS WERE GIVEN BY PROF SIR BRIAN JARMAN, AN INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITY ON HOSPITAL PERFORMANCE, WHO HAD DEVISED A DEATH RATE ALERT SYSTEM.

His real–time mortality alert system, warning hospitals if death rates were too high, showed that Mid Staffs had a rate above the national average. In 2006, its rate was 27 per cent above the average.

DATA SHOW THAT OTHERS WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE DEATH RATES, AS THE ALERT SYSTEM WAS ACCESSED BY STAFF AT THE TRUST AND IN THE WEST MIDLANDS STRATEGIC HEALTH AUTHORITY REGION AS MANY AS 8,000 TIMES BETWEEN 2005 AND 2009.

The trust was also accused of changing the way it recorded or coded patient deaths, making the figures appear better than they were.

In 2007, it logged less than one per cent of patients admitted to hospital under the NHS palliative care code, which denotes that they would be expected to die. After a change in coding, the following year nearly 35 per cent of patients were reportedly palliative. The trust has denied that the coding was inaccurate.

-

http://tinyurl.com/a
jor65w
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Cairns Council Votes To Dump Fluoride.. Amounts To "Involuntary Medication" .. - Cairns council votes to dump fluoride.. Date.January 30, 2013 - 12:14PM. The Cairns City Council will remove fluoride from its water supply, saying it amounts to the "involuntary medication" of residents. But the council says it won't be doing anything to determine if there's broad community support for fluoridation to continue. "If people want to have access to fluoride, they need to take that up with their dentists," a council spokeswoman said on Wednesday. "The decision has been made ... it shouldn't be forced on people without consent." Fluoridation currently cost the council about $300,000 in chemicals, staffing, testing, electricity and infrastructure, he said. Fluoride will stop being added to the Cairns water supply from the middle of next month. - http://www.brisbanet imes.com.au/queensla nd/cairns-council-vo tes-to-dump-fluoride -20130130-2dk1a.html[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. - THE TEETH OF SOUTHAMPTON'S 5 YEAR OLD'S ARE GENERALLY BETTER THAN THE ENGLAND AVERAGE. In fact tooth decay in our close neighbors 5 year old's, MILTON KEYNES, Reading & Slough are significantly worse than the England average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Here's the killer, MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated.. 1.0 to 1.5 mg/f which is above recommended fluoridation levels - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than Southampton's. - Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than SHA's Average. Southampton's Adult Obesity is Not Significantly different from SHA's Average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8 - TAP (fluoridated) WATER CAN MAKE YOU FAT, SAY EXPERTS Jul 11 2004. By Caroline Wheeler, Sunday Mercury. Medical experts claim that West Midlands tap water can make people FAT and could be fuelling rising obesity levels. For the past 40 years, fluoride has been pumped into the region's tap water to help keep teeth healthy. But now a top doctor claims that the toxin can cause worrying health side-effects including hypothyroidism, a medical dis-order affecting the thyroid gland which controls weight gain. And he believes that children may be particularly susceptible to obesity if their mums drank fluoridated water while pregnant. LAST YEAR, THE WEST MIDLANDS TOPPED THE UK 'FAT LIST' WITH A SHOCKING 22.5 PER CENT OF ITS POPULATION CLASSED CLINICALLY OBESE. Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield said: "There is no doubt that fluoride is enzyme disruptive and one thing it affects is thyroid hormones. "As a result of this disruption, people can finish up with partial under-activity of the thyroid gland. "Thyroid problems are becoming more common, particularly in Birmingham, and one of the reasons is because of fluoride in the water." - http://tinyurl.com/a jtcvgm[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than Southampton/England - Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than the England Average. Southampton, the numbers of over-65s with hip fractures are not significantly different from the England average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8 - THE CRIPPLING (FLUORIDE )TOXIN YOU KNOWINGLY CONSUME EVERY DAY... August 10, 2011 The fact that fluoride can damage your bones, often quite seriously, is no longer in dispute. Just ask the millions of people throughout the world who currently suffer from skeletal fluorosis—a crippling bone disease caused by too much fluoride and marked by irregular bone growth and calcification of the joints. Of course, it takes a high dose of fluoride to cause crippling fluorosis. BUT FLUORIDE ACCUMULATES OVER TIME, SO THE SEVERITY OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS EXISTS ALONG A CONTINUUM, WITH THE EARLIER STAGES PRODUCED BY LOWER DOSES AND MARKED BY MORE SUBTLE SYMPTOMS, SUCH AS JOINT PAIN AND STIFFNESS. In 2006, skeletal fluorosis was identified by the US National Research Council (NRC) as an adverse effect that needs to be considered by the EPA when lowering the maximum safe level of fluoride in water. While case studies in recent years have documented advanced skeletal fluorosis in the US among high-tea drinkers, the EPA has done no serious analysis of the extent to which the disease may be occurring throughout the country. - http://articles.merc ola.com/sites/articl es/archive/2011/08/1 0/fluoride-can-damag e-your-bones.aspx[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. 60% of all U.S. Children have Dental Fluorosis.. 3% to 4% expected in Southampton? - SHA's OWN RESEARCH REVIEW. The Medical Research Council, when reviewing the York report and taking account of other studies, concluded that a more realistic figure for fluorosis in fluoridated areas within the UK might be between 3% and 4%. http://tinyurl.com/b 6ewake - FLUORIDATION IS NOTHING TO CELEBRATE. NEW YORK, Jan. 23, 2013. Fluoride overexposure is a new and GROWING EPIDEMIC AFFLICTING UP TO 60% OF U.S. ADOLESCENTS WITH DENTAL FLUOROSIS (white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth). Early fluoridationists expected that no more than 10% of children would develop mild fluorosis. CDC reports that Black and Mexican-American children suffer significantly higher rates of the more severe forms of dental fluorosis. Even fluoride varnish, containing 26,600 ppm fluoride, was never safety-tested but is applied to teeth of babies as young as 6-months-old which "leads to a significant increase in urine fluoride." - http://www.prnewswir e.com/news-releases/ fluoridation-is-noth ing-to-celebrate-188 045531.html[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. Criminal SHA Bosses to be held responsible for deaths of relatives - A date which will live in infamy.. 11 Feb 2011, SHA defeated a High Court legal challenge designed to stop Southampton's Fluoridation. - FAMILIES CALL FOR BOSSES TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DEATHS OF RELATIVES. JONATHAN BROWN WEDNESDAY 06 FEBRUARY 2013. NHS's darkest day: Five more hospitals under investigation for neglect as report blames 'failings at every level' for 1,200 deaths at Stafford Hospital. The families of patients who died after receiving substandard care at Stafford Hospital have demanded that senior managers – including the current head of the NHS – be held responsible for the deaths of their loved ones. Families called for the resignation of Sir David Nicholson, NHS chief executive, who was head of Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority which was responsible for Mid Staffs NHS Trust at the time of the scandal. Some also demanded the head of Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, after the report’s damning verdict on nursing standards. “The point about criminal prosecution, which I think most people feel, is that perhaps more than a thousand people died because of poor care. No one has been brought to book and that feels wrong,” he told Sky News. Sir David Nicholson. Former chief executive of West Midlands Strategic Health Authority and the Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority. He was responsible for supervising Mid Staffs NHS Trust from 2005 to 2006. Yesterday he repeated his apology for the poor care experienced by patients, adding: “But apologies are not enough – we need action, we need to make things happen.” Cynthia Bower Former chief executive of West Midlands Strategic Health Authority. The report concluded that Ms Bower’s priorities were directed at finance and restructuring rather than care. “The protection of patients does not figure expressly at all in her priorities, although she would doubtless argue that such a concept underlay all of them,” it found. Martin Yeates Former chief executive of Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust. Salary: £180,000. The report said he failed to appreciate the seriousness of the Trust’s problems and the significance of the mortality figures. "HE WAS THAT MOST DANGEROUS OF LEADERS: ONE WHO WAS PERSUASIVE BUT INEFFECTIVE," IT SAID. RECEIVED £400,000 PAY-OFF AND £1M PENSION POT. - http://tinyurl.com/b 4y69cx[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. SHAs Ignore Warnings & Manipulate Statistics - Just my unqualified opinion.. the truth will never see the light of day until all SHA Bosses are held legally culpable for their actions. going by recent news reports this is just the tip of a pyramid of healthcare negligence. - I WARNED STAFFORD BOSSES OF HIGH DEATH RATES, CLAIMS PROFESSOR By Rosa Silverman8:28AM GMT 18 Jan. The hospital became engulfed in a scandal after an investigation uncovered up to 1,200 "excess" deaths and a catalogue of failings in patient care between 2005 and 2008. On a number of occasions from July 2007 onwards, the chief executive of the Mid Staffs Health Care Trust, to which the hospital belonged, had been told in writing that the number of deaths at the hospital appeared high, it was claimed. THE WARNINGS WERE GIVEN BY PROF SIR BRIAN JARMAN, AN INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITY ON HOSPITAL PERFORMANCE, WHO HAD DEVISED A DEATH RATE ALERT SYSTEM. His real–time mortality alert system, warning hospitals if death rates were too high, showed that Mid Staffs had a rate above the national average. In 2006, its rate was 27 per cent above the average. DATA SHOW THAT OTHERS WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE DEATH RATES, AS THE ALERT SYSTEM WAS ACCESSED BY STAFF AT THE TRUST AND IN THE WEST MIDLANDS STRATEGIC HEALTH AUTHORITY REGION AS MANY AS 8,000 TIMES BETWEEN 2005 AND 2009. The trust was also accused of changing the way it recorded or coded patient deaths, making the figures appear better than they were. In 2007, it logged less than one per cent of patients admitted to hospital under the NHS palliative care code, which denotes that they would be expected to die. After a change in coding, the following year nearly 35 per cent of patients were reportedly palliative. The trust has denied that the coding was inaccurate. - http://tinyurl.com/a jor65w Dan Soton

12:47pm Mon 11 Feb 13

whats_that_button_for says...

UPDATE:
Here's a quick analysis of the comments here so far:

===================
===================

Pro-fluoridation commenters:

1. cliffwalker:
a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with MMR. Different issues.
b. Who to consult when in doubt? Try Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridea
lert.org
c. 97% of Europe has chosen fluoride-free water: http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/articles/fl
uoride-facts/

2. Chas O'Bursledon:
a. Which area of SW London is he talking about relating to fluoridation?

3. Linesman:
a. Evidence?: 72% of people during the public fluoridation consultation for Southampton voted against fluoridation. Were you one of the 28%?
b. No fluorosis evidence in Midlands? :
http://www.wmaf.org.
uk/index.php?content
=content&parent=3&re
ad=3&keyword=
http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/issues/heal
th/pineal-gland/
http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/issues/fluo
rosis/

4. business-guru: no harmful side effects to fluoride in water? Where did you look? Which part of the info at this site do you disagree with and why? : http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/articles/fl
uoride-facts/

5. kingnotail: Just look at this guy's comments on the Echo site here. He has nothing good to say about anything.

These commenters are FUD merchants - because they promote fluoridation without quoting any evidence for their position. Probably because they have none. Consensus replaces scientific facts now?

FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt:
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Fear,_uncer
tainty_and_doubt

Five pro-fluoridation commenters.

===================
===================

Anti-fluoridation commenters :

1. Bagamn
2. freefinker
3. ginger cyclist
4. Taskforce141
5. st1halo
6. southy
7. Subject48
8. BeyondImagination
9. Stephen J
10. whats_that_button_fo
r
11. EvieMa
12. Shergold
13. saintinpattaya
14. Joe8135
15. beaucarrel
16. peter sowerby
17. likewatchingbrazil
18. white tooth
19. Dan Soton

Nineteen anti-fluoridation commenters.

===================
===================

Undeclared position on fluoridation commenters:

1. St Retford:
a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with climate change (cc). Precautionary principle (pp) is advocated with cc, but you appear not to consider pp valid when fluoridation is the topic? Why?
b. Made fun of challenge to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus. Inconvenient?
c. Says position not stated, but appears pro-fluoridation from comments.

2. FoysCornerBoy
Not declared position on fluoridation, but looks to be pro-fluoridation from comments.

3. beiroot

4. Beer Monster

Four undeclared positions on fluoridation commenters.

===================
===================

Summary:
5 For fluoridation
19 Against fluoridation
4 Undeclared positions on fluoridation

The consensus here is against fluoridation, so the pro fluoridation people here are in a minority.

It is also noted that the pro-fluoridation commenters never provide any evidence for their position.
UPDATE: Here's a quick analysis of the comments here so far: =================== =================== Pro-fluoridation commenters: 1. cliffwalker: a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with MMR. Different issues. b. Who to consult when in doubt? Try Fluoride Action Network: http://www.fluoridea lert.org c. 97% of Europe has chosen fluoride-free water: http://www.fluoridea lert.org/articles/fl uoride-facts/ 2. Chas O'Bursledon: a. Which area of SW London is he talking about relating to fluoridation? 3. Linesman: a. Evidence?: 72% of people during the public fluoridation consultation for Southampton voted against fluoridation. Were you one of the 28%? b. No fluorosis evidence in Midlands? : http://www.wmaf.org. uk/index.php?content =content&parent=3&re ad=3&keyword= http://www.fluoridea lert.org/issues/heal th/pineal-gland/ http://www.fluoridea lert.org/issues/fluo rosis/ 4. business-guru: no harmful side effects to fluoride in water? Where did you look? Which part of the info at this site do you disagree with and why? : http://www.fluoridea lert.org/articles/fl uoride-facts/ 5. kingnotail: Just look at this guy's comments on the Echo site here. He has nothing good to say about anything. These commenters are FUD merchants - because they promote fluoridation without quoting any evidence for their position. Probably because they have none. Consensus replaces scientific facts now? FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Fear,_uncer tainty_and_doubt Five pro-fluoridation commenters. =================== =================== Anti-fluoridation commenters : 1. Bagamn 2. freefinker 3. ginger cyclist 4. Taskforce141 5. st1halo 6. southy 7. Subject48 8. BeyondImagination 9. Stephen J 10. whats_that_button_fo r 11. EvieMa 12. Shergold 13. saintinpattaya 14. Joe8135 15. beaucarrel 16. peter sowerby 17. likewatchingbrazil 18. white tooth 19. Dan Soton Nineteen anti-fluoridation commenters. =================== =================== Undeclared position on fluoridation commenters: 1. St Retford: a. Attempt to conflate fluoridation with climate change (cc). Precautionary principle (pp) is advocated with cc, but you appear not to consider pp valid when fluoridation is the topic? Why? b. Made fun of challenge to comment on nvCJD and scientific consensus. Inconvenient? c. Says position not stated, but appears pro-fluoridation from comments. 2. FoysCornerBoy Not declared position on fluoridation, but looks to be pro-fluoridation from comments. 3. beiroot 4. Beer Monster Four undeclared positions on fluoridation commenters. =================== =================== Summary: 5 For fluoridation 19 Against fluoridation 4 Undeclared positions on fluoridation The consensus here is against fluoridation, so the pro fluoridation people here are in a minority. It is also noted that the pro-fluoridation commenters never provide any evidence for their position. whats_that_button_for

3:13pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Cairns Council Votes To Dump Fluoride.. Amounts To "Involuntary Medication" ..


-


Cairns council votes to dump fluoride..

Date.January 30, 2013 - 12:14PM.

The Cairns City Council will remove fluoride from its water supply, saying it amounts to the "involuntary medication" of residents.

But the council says it won't be doing anything to determine if there's broad community support for fluoridation to continue.

"If people want to have access to fluoride, they need to take that up with their dentists," a council spokeswoman said on Wednesday.

"The decision has been made ... it shouldn't be forced on people without consent."

Fluoridation currently cost the council about $300,000 in chemicals, staffing, testing, electricity and infrastructure, he said.

Fluoride will stop being added to the Cairns water supply from the middle of next month.

-


http://www.brisbanet







imes.com.au/queensla







nd/cairns-council-vo







tes-to-dump-fluoride







-20130130-2dk1a.html
Fluoridation X-Files.. Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.

-


THE TEETH OF SOUTHAMPTON'S 5 YEAR OLD'S ARE GENERALLY BETTER THAN THE ENGLAND AVERAGE.

In fact tooth decay in our close neighbors 5 year old's, MILTON KEYNES, Reading & Slough are significantly worse than the England average.

-


www.apho.org.uk/reso






urce/view.aspx?RID=9






5375
-



Here's the killer, MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated.. 1.0 to 1.5 mg/f which is above recommended fluoridation levels

-

http://tinyurl.com/b






8m9wh8
Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than Southampton's.


-

Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.



Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than SHA's Average.


Southampton's Adult Obesity is Not Significantly different from SHA's Average.


-

www.apho.org.uk/reso





urce/view.aspx?RID=9





5375

-

Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l
-

http://tinyurl.com/b





8m9wh8

-



TAP (fluoridated) WATER CAN MAKE YOU FAT, SAY EXPERTS

Jul 11 2004.

By Caroline Wheeler, Sunday Mercury.

Medical experts claim that West Midlands tap water can make people FAT and could be fuelling rising obesity levels.

For the past 40 years, fluoride has been pumped into the region's tap water to help keep teeth healthy.

But now a top doctor claims that the toxin can cause worrying health side-effects including hypothyroidism, a medical dis-order affecting the thyroid gland which controls weight gain.

And he believes that children may be particularly susceptible to obesity if their mums drank fluoridated water while pregnant.

LAST YEAR, THE WEST MIDLANDS TOPPED THE UK 'FAT LIST' WITH A SHOCKING 22.5 PER CENT OF ITS POPULATION CLASSED CLINICALLY OBESE.

Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield said: "There is no doubt that fluoride is enzyme disruptive and one thing it affects is thyroid hormones.

"As a result of this disruption, people can finish up with partial under-activity of the thyroid gland.

"Thyroid problems are becoming more common, particularly in Birmingham, and one of the reasons is because of fluoride in the water."

-


http://tinyurl.com/a





jtcvgm
Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than Southampton/England


-

Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.



Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than the England Average.


Southampton, the numbers of over-65s with hip fractures are not significantly different from the England average.

-

www.apho.org.uk/reso




urce/view.aspx?RID=9




5375

-

Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l

-

http://tinyurl.com/b




8m9wh8

-



THE CRIPPLING (FLUORIDE )TOXIN YOU KNOWINGLY CONSUME EVERY DAY...

August 10, 2011

The fact that fluoride can damage your bones, often quite seriously, is no longer in dispute. Just ask the millions of people throughout the world who currently suffer from skeletal fluorosis—a crippling bone disease caused by too much fluoride and marked by irregular bone growth and calcification of the joints.


Of course, it takes a high dose of fluoride to cause crippling fluorosis.

BUT FLUORIDE ACCUMULATES OVER TIME, SO THE SEVERITY OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS EXISTS ALONG A CONTINUUM, WITH THE EARLIER STAGES PRODUCED BY LOWER DOSES AND MARKED BY MORE SUBTLE SYMPTOMS, SUCH AS JOINT PAIN AND STIFFNESS.

In 2006, skeletal fluorosis was identified by the US National Research Council (NRC) as an adverse effect that needs to be considered by the EPA when lowering the maximum safe level of fluoride in water. While case studies in recent years have documented advanced skeletal fluorosis in the US among high-tea drinkers, the EPA has done no serious analysis of the extent to which the disease may be occurring throughout the country.

-

http://articles.merc




ola.com/sites/articl




es/archive/2011/08/1




0/fluoride-can-damag




e-your-bones.aspx
Fluoridation X-Files.. 60% of all U.S. Children have Dental Fluorosis.. 3% to 4% expected in Southampton?



-

SHA's OWN RESEARCH REVIEW.

The Medical Research Council, when reviewing the York report and taking account of other studies, concluded that a more realistic figure for fluorosis in fluoridated areas within the UK might be between 3% and 4%.

http://tinyurl.com/b



6ewake

-



FLUORIDATION IS NOTHING TO CELEBRATE.

NEW YORK, Jan. 23, 2013.

Fluoride overexposure is a new and GROWING EPIDEMIC AFFLICTING UP TO 60% OF U.S. ADOLESCENTS WITH DENTAL FLUOROSIS (white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth). Early fluoridationists expected that no more than 10% of children would develop mild fluorosis. CDC reports that Black and Mexican-American children suffer significantly higher rates of the more severe forms of dental fluorosis.

Even fluoride varnish, containing 26,600 ppm fluoride, was never safety-tested but is applied to teeth of babies as young as 6-months-old which "leads to a significant increase in urine fluoride."


-

http://www.prnewswir



e.com/news-releases/



fluoridation-is-noth



ing-to-celebrate-188



045531.html
Fluoridation X-Files.. Criminal SHA Bosses to be held responsible for deaths of relatives


-

A date which will live in infamy.. 11 Feb 2011, SHA defeated a High Court legal challenge designed to stop Southampton's Fluoridation.


-


FAMILIES CALL FOR BOSSES TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DEATHS OF RELATIVES.

JONATHAN BROWN WEDNESDAY 06 FEBRUARY 2013.

NHS's darkest day: Five more hospitals under investigation for neglect as report blames 'failings at every level' for 1,200 deaths at Stafford Hospital.

The families of patients who died after receiving substandard care at Stafford Hospital have demanded that senior managers – including the current head of the NHS – be held responsible for the deaths of their loved ones.

Families called for the resignation of Sir David Nicholson, NHS chief executive, who was head of Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority which was responsible for Mid Staffs NHS Trust at the time of the scandal. Some also demanded the head of Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, after the report’s damning verdict on nursing standards.

“The point about criminal prosecution, which I think most people feel, is that perhaps more than a thousand people died because of poor care. No one has been brought to book and that feels wrong,” he told Sky News.

Sir David Nicholson.

Former chief executive of West Midlands Strategic Health Authority and the Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority. He was responsible for supervising Mid Staffs NHS Trust from 2005 to 2006. Yesterday he repeated his apology for the poor care experienced by patients, adding: “But apologies are not enough – we need action, we need to make things happen.”

Cynthia Bower Former chief executive of West Midlands Strategic Health Authority.

The report concluded that Ms Bower’s priorities were directed at finance and restructuring rather than care. “The protection of patients does not figure expressly at all in her priorities, although she would doubtless argue that such a concept underlay all of them,” it found.

Martin Yeates Former chief executive of Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust.

Salary: £180,000.

The report said he failed to appreciate the seriousness of the Trust’s problems and the significance of the mortality figures. "HE WAS THAT MOST DANGEROUS OF LEADERS: ONE WHO WAS PERSUASIVE BUT INEFFECTIVE," IT SAID. RECEIVED £400,000 PAY-OFF AND £1M PENSION POT.

-

http://tinyurl.com/b


4y69cx
Fluoridation X-Files.. SHAs Ignore Warnings & Manipulate Statistics


-

Just my unqualified opinion.. the truth will never see the light of day until all SHA Bosses are held legally culpable for their actions.

going by recent news reports this is just the tip of a pyramid of healthcare negligence.

-


I WARNED STAFFORD BOSSES OF HIGH DEATH RATES, CLAIMS PROFESSOR

By Rosa Silverman8:28AM GMT 18 Jan.

The hospital became engulfed in a scandal after an investigation uncovered up to 1,200 "excess" deaths and a catalogue of failings in patient care between 2005 and 2008.

On a number of occasions from July 2007 onwards, the chief executive of the Mid Staffs Health Care Trust, to which the hospital belonged, had been told in writing that the number of deaths at the hospital appeared high, it was claimed.

THE WARNINGS WERE GIVEN BY PROF SIR BRIAN JARMAN, AN INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITY ON HOSPITAL PERFORMANCE, WHO HAD DEVISED A DEATH RATE ALERT SYSTEM.

His real–time mortality alert system, warning hospitals if death rates were too high, showed that Mid Staffs had a rate above the national average. In 2006, its rate was 27 per cent above the average.

DATA SHOW THAT OTHERS WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE DEATH RATES, AS THE ALERT SYSTEM WAS ACCESSED BY STAFF AT THE TRUST AND IN THE WEST MIDLANDS STRATEGIC HEALTH AUTHORITY REGION AS MANY AS 8,000 TIMES BETWEEN 2005 AND 2009.

The trust was also accused of changing the way it recorded or coded patient deaths, making the figures appear better than they were.

In 2007, it logged less than one per cent of patients admitted to hospital under the NHS palliative care code, which denotes that they would be expected to die. After a change in coding, the following year nearly 35 per cent of patients were reportedly palliative. The trust has denied that the coding was inaccurate.

-

http://tinyurl.com/a

jor65w
Fluoridation X-Files.. Podcast: Ireland/UK Livestock (meat/offal/bone) with skeletal fluorosis sold for human consumption



That's according to a Vet visiting an Abattoir/Slaughterho
use.


Skip to 1:14:40.. Ireland/UK Livestock can drink up to 20 gallons Fluoridated water a day.


Skip to 1:22:30.. MP Tessa Jowell hears no testing for Fluoride contamination.


-


Podcast:


http://tinyurl.com/b
s4v836



also


Podcast:

http://media48.podbe
an.com/pb/3b4dbfa746
00541c72b8d0e1aa804b
70/5119a79b/data1/bl
ogs5/230465/uploads/
2012_fluoride_the_pr
otected_poison.mp3



-


We learn today from UK Scientists that Ireland/UK/Romanian horse (offal/bone) meat may be substandard.

In the case of Ireland/UK I suggest Scientists look for fluorosis and Romania arsenic-contaminatio
n.

-



Romania.. ill-health has been reported due to arsenic-contaminated water.

-


http://www.who.int/w
ater_sanitation_heal
th/en/poster8.pdf

-

Long-term, low level exposure to arsenic in drinking water may increase a person's risk of skin cancer, according to a new study conducted in Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. The study suggests that LEVELS OF INORGANIC ARSENIC PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT TO BE HARMLESS MAY HAVE A CARCINOGENIC EFFECT OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME.

-

http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/integrat
ion/research/newsale
rt/pdf/297na1.pdf
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Cairns Council Votes To Dump Fluoride.. Amounts To "Involuntary Medication" .. - Cairns council votes to dump fluoride.. Date.January 30, 2013 - 12:14PM. The Cairns City Council will remove fluoride from its water supply, saying it amounts to the "involuntary medication" of residents. But the council says it won't be doing anything to determine if there's broad community support for fluoridation to continue. "If people want to have access to fluoride, they need to take that up with their dentists," a council spokeswoman said on Wednesday. "The decision has been made ... it shouldn't be forced on people without consent." Fluoridation currently cost the council about $300,000 in chemicals, staffing, testing, electricity and infrastructure, he said. Fluoride will stop being added to the Cairns water supply from the middle of next month. - http://www.brisbanet imes.com.au/queensla nd/cairns-council-vo tes-to-dump-fluoride -20130130-2dk1a.html[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. - THE TEETH OF SOUTHAMPTON'S 5 YEAR OLD'S ARE GENERALLY BETTER THAN THE ENGLAND AVERAGE. In fact tooth decay in our close neighbors 5 year old's, MILTON KEYNES, Reading & Slough are significantly worse than the England average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Here's the killer, MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated.. 1.0 to 1.5 mg/f which is above recommended fluoridation levels - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than Southampton's. - Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than SHA's Average. Southampton's Adult Obesity is Not Significantly different from SHA's Average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8 - TAP (fluoridated) WATER CAN MAKE YOU FAT, SAY EXPERTS Jul 11 2004. By Caroline Wheeler, Sunday Mercury. Medical experts claim that West Midlands tap water can make people FAT and could be fuelling rising obesity levels. For the past 40 years, fluoride has been pumped into the region's tap water to help keep teeth healthy. But now a top doctor claims that the toxin can cause worrying health side-effects including hypothyroidism, a medical dis-order affecting the thyroid gland which controls weight gain. And he believes that children may be particularly susceptible to obesity if their mums drank fluoridated water while pregnant. LAST YEAR, THE WEST MIDLANDS TOPPED THE UK 'FAT LIST' WITH A SHOCKING 22.5 PER CENT OF ITS POPULATION CLASSED CLINICALLY OBESE. Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield said: "There is no doubt that fluoride is enzyme disruptive and one thing it affects is thyroid hormones. "As a result of this disruption, people can finish up with partial under-activity of the thyroid gland. "Thyroid problems are becoming more common, particularly in Birmingham, and one of the reasons is because of fluoride in the water." - http://tinyurl.com/a jtcvgm[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than Southampton/England - Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than the England Average. Southampton, the numbers of over-65s with hip fractures are not significantly different from the England average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8 - THE CRIPPLING (FLUORIDE )TOXIN YOU KNOWINGLY CONSUME EVERY DAY... August 10, 2011 The fact that fluoride can damage your bones, often quite seriously, is no longer in dispute. Just ask the millions of people throughout the world who currently suffer from skeletal fluorosis—a crippling bone disease caused by too much fluoride and marked by irregular bone growth and calcification of the joints. Of course, it takes a high dose of fluoride to cause crippling fluorosis. BUT FLUORIDE ACCUMULATES OVER TIME, SO THE SEVERITY OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS EXISTS ALONG A CONTINUUM, WITH THE EARLIER STAGES PRODUCED BY LOWER DOSES AND MARKED BY MORE SUBTLE SYMPTOMS, SUCH AS JOINT PAIN AND STIFFNESS. In 2006, skeletal fluorosis was identified by the US National Research Council (NRC) as an adverse effect that needs to be considered by the EPA when lowering the maximum safe level of fluoride in water. While case studies in recent years have documented advanced skeletal fluorosis in the US among high-tea drinkers, the EPA has done no serious analysis of the extent to which the disease may be occurring throughout the country. - http://articles.merc ola.com/sites/articl es/archive/2011/08/1 0/fluoride-can-damag e-your-bones.aspx[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. 60% of all U.S. Children have Dental Fluorosis.. 3% to 4% expected in Southampton? - SHA's OWN RESEARCH REVIEW. The Medical Research Council, when reviewing the York report and taking account of other studies, concluded that a more realistic figure for fluorosis in fluoridated areas within the UK might be between 3% and 4%. http://tinyurl.com/b 6ewake - FLUORIDATION IS NOTHING TO CELEBRATE. NEW YORK, Jan. 23, 2013. Fluoride overexposure is a new and GROWING EPIDEMIC AFFLICTING UP TO 60% OF U.S. ADOLESCENTS WITH DENTAL FLUOROSIS (white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth). Early fluoridationists expected that no more than 10% of children would develop mild fluorosis. CDC reports that Black and Mexican-American children suffer significantly higher rates of the more severe forms of dental fluorosis. Even fluoride varnish, containing 26,600 ppm fluoride, was never safety-tested but is applied to teeth of babies as young as 6-months-old which "leads to a significant increase in urine fluoride." - http://www.prnewswir e.com/news-releases/ fluoridation-is-noth ing-to-celebrate-188 045531.html[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. Criminal SHA Bosses to be held responsible for deaths of relatives - A date which will live in infamy.. 11 Feb 2011, SHA defeated a High Court legal challenge designed to stop Southampton's Fluoridation. - FAMILIES CALL FOR BOSSES TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DEATHS OF RELATIVES. JONATHAN BROWN WEDNESDAY 06 FEBRUARY 2013. NHS's darkest day: Five more hospitals under investigation for neglect as report blames 'failings at every level' for 1,200 deaths at Stafford Hospital. The families of patients who died after receiving substandard care at Stafford Hospital have demanded that senior managers – including the current head of the NHS – be held responsible for the deaths of their loved ones. Families called for the resignation of Sir David Nicholson, NHS chief executive, who was head of Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority which was responsible for Mid Staffs NHS Trust at the time of the scandal. Some also demanded the head of Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, after the report’s damning verdict on nursing standards. “The point about criminal prosecution, which I think most people feel, is that perhaps more than a thousand people died because of poor care. No one has been brought to book and that feels wrong,” he told Sky News. Sir David Nicholson. Former chief executive of West Midlands Strategic Health Authority and the Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority. He was responsible for supervising Mid Staffs NHS Trust from 2005 to 2006. Yesterday he repeated his apology for the poor care experienced by patients, adding: “But apologies are not enough – we need action, we need to make things happen.” Cynthia Bower Former chief executive of West Midlands Strategic Health Authority. The report concluded that Ms Bower’s priorities were directed at finance and restructuring rather than care. “The protection of patients does not figure expressly at all in her priorities, although she would doubtless argue that such a concept underlay all of them,” it found. Martin Yeates Former chief executive of Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust. Salary: £180,000. The report said he failed to appreciate the seriousness of the Trust’s problems and the significance of the mortality figures. "HE WAS THAT MOST DANGEROUS OF LEADERS: ONE WHO WAS PERSUASIVE BUT INEFFECTIVE," IT SAID. RECEIVED £400,000 PAY-OFF AND £1M PENSION POT. - http://tinyurl.com/b 4y69cx[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. SHAs Ignore Warnings & Manipulate Statistics - Just my unqualified opinion.. the truth will never see the light of day until all SHA Bosses are held legally culpable for their actions. going by recent news reports this is just the tip of a pyramid of healthcare negligence. - I WARNED STAFFORD BOSSES OF HIGH DEATH RATES, CLAIMS PROFESSOR By Rosa Silverman8:28AM GMT 18 Jan. The hospital became engulfed in a scandal after an investigation uncovered up to 1,200 "excess" deaths and a catalogue of failings in patient care between 2005 and 2008. On a number of occasions from July 2007 onwards, the chief executive of the Mid Staffs Health Care Trust, to which the hospital belonged, had been told in writing that the number of deaths at the hospital appeared high, it was claimed. THE WARNINGS WERE GIVEN BY PROF SIR BRIAN JARMAN, AN INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITY ON HOSPITAL PERFORMANCE, WHO HAD DEVISED A DEATH RATE ALERT SYSTEM. His real–time mortality alert system, warning hospitals if death rates were too high, showed that Mid Staffs had a rate above the national average. In 2006, its rate was 27 per cent above the average. DATA SHOW THAT OTHERS WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE DEATH RATES, AS THE ALERT SYSTEM WAS ACCESSED BY STAFF AT THE TRUST AND IN THE WEST MIDLANDS STRATEGIC HEALTH AUTHORITY REGION AS MANY AS 8,000 TIMES BETWEEN 2005 AND 2009. The trust was also accused of changing the way it recorded or coded patient deaths, making the figures appear better than they were. In 2007, it logged less than one per cent of patients admitted to hospital under the NHS palliative care code, which denotes that they would be expected to die. After a change in coding, the following year nearly 35 per cent of patients were reportedly palliative. The trust has denied that the coding was inaccurate. - http://tinyurl.com/a jor65w[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. Podcast: Ireland/UK Livestock (meat/offal/bone) with skeletal fluorosis sold for human consumption That's according to a Vet visiting an Abattoir/Slaughterho use. Skip to 1:14:40.. Ireland/UK Livestock can drink up to 20 gallons Fluoridated water a day. Skip to 1:22:30.. MP Tessa Jowell hears no testing for Fluoride contamination. - Podcast: http://tinyurl.com/b s4v836 also Podcast: http://media48.podbe an.com/pb/3b4dbfa746 00541c72b8d0e1aa804b 70/5119a79b/data1/bl ogs5/230465/uploads/ 2012_fluoride_the_pr otected_poison.mp3 - We learn today from UK Scientists that Ireland/UK/Romanian horse (offal/bone) meat may be substandard. In the case of Ireland/UK I suggest Scientists look for fluorosis and Romania arsenic-contaminatio n. - Romania.. ill-health has been reported due to arsenic-contaminated water. - http://www.who.int/w ater_sanitation_heal th/en/poster8.pdf - Long-term, low level exposure to arsenic in drinking water may increase a person's risk of skin cancer, according to a new study conducted in Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. The study suggests that LEVELS OF INORGANIC ARSENIC PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT TO BE HARMLESS MAY HAVE A CARCINOGENIC EFFECT OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME. - http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/integrat ion/research/newsale rt/pdf/297na1.pdf Dan Soton

6:03pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Cairns Council Votes To Dump Fluoride.. Amounts To "Involuntary Medication" ..


-


Cairns council votes to dump fluoride..

Date.January 30, 2013 - 12:14PM.

The Cairns City Council will remove fluoride from its water supply, saying it amounts to the "involuntary medication" of residents.

But the council says it won't be doing anything to determine if there's broad community support for fluoridation to continue.

"If people want to have access to fluoride, they need to take that up with their dentists," a council spokeswoman said on Wednesday.

"The decision has been made ... it shouldn't be forced on people without consent."

Fluoridation currently cost the council about $300,000 in chemicals, staffing, testing, electricity and infrastructure, he said.

Fluoride will stop being added to the Cairns water supply from the middle of next month.

-


http://www.brisbanet








imes.com.au/queensla








nd/cairns-council-vo








tes-to-dump-fluoride








-20130130-2dk1a.html
Fluoridation X-Files.. Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.

-


THE TEETH OF SOUTHAMPTON'S 5 YEAR OLD'S ARE GENERALLY BETTER THAN THE ENGLAND AVERAGE.

In fact tooth decay in our close neighbors 5 year old's, MILTON KEYNES, Reading & Slough are significantly worse than the England average.

-


www.apho.org.uk/reso







urce/view.aspx?RID=9







5375
-



Here's the killer, MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated.. 1.0 to 1.5 mg/f which is above recommended fluoridation levels

-

http://tinyurl.com/b







8m9wh8
Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than Southampton's.


-

Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.



Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than SHA's Average.


Southampton's Adult Obesity is Not Significantly different from SHA's Average.


-

www.apho.org.uk/reso






urce/view.aspx?RID=9






5375

-

Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l
-

http://tinyurl.com/b






8m9wh8

-



TAP (fluoridated) WATER CAN MAKE YOU FAT, SAY EXPERTS

Jul 11 2004.

By Caroline Wheeler, Sunday Mercury.

Medical experts claim that West Midlands tap water can make people FAT and could be fuelling rising obesity levels.

For the past 40 years, fluoride has been pumped into the region's tap water to help keep teeth healthy.

But now a top doctor claims that the toxin can cause worrying health side-effects including hypothyroidism, a medical dis-order affecting the thyroid gland which controls weight gain.

And he believes that children may be particularly susceptible to obesity if their mums drank fluoridated water while pregnant.

LAST YEAR, THE WEST MIDLANDS TOPPED THE UK 'FAT LIST' WITH A SHOCKING 22.5 PER CENT OF ITS POPULATION CLASSED CLINICALLY OBESE.

Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield said: "There is no doubt that fluoride is enzyme disruptive and one thing it affects is thyroid hormones.

"As a result of this disruption, people can finish up with partial under-activity of the thyroid gland.

"Thyroid problems are becoming more common, particularly in Birmingham, and one of the reasons is because of fluoride in the water."

-


http://tinyurl.com/a






jtcvgm
Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than Southampton/England


-

Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators.



Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than the England Average.


Southampton, the numbers of over-65s with hip fractures are not significantly different from the England average.

-

www.apho.org.uk/reso





urce/view.aspx?RID=9





5375

-

Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l

-

http://tinyurl.com/b





8m9wh8

-



THE CRIPPLING (FLUORIDE )TOXIN YOU KNOWINGLY CONSUME EVERY DAY...

August 10, 2011

The fact that fluoride can damage your bones, often quite seriously, is no longer in dispute. Just ask the millions of people throughout the world who currently suffer from skeletal fluorosis—a crippling bone disease caused by too much fluoride and marked by irregular bone growth and calcification of the joints.


Of course, it takes a high dose of fluoride to cause crippling fluorosis.

BUT FLUORIDE ACCUMULATES OVER TIME, SO THE SEVERITY OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS EXISTS ALONG A CONTINUUM, WITH THE EARLIER STAGES PRODUCED BY LOWER DOSES AND MARKED BY MORE SUBTLE SYMPTOMS, SUCH AS JOINT PAIN AND STIFFNESS.

In 2006, skeletal fluorosis was identified by the US National Research Council (NRC) as an adverse effect that needs to be considered by the EPA when lowering the maximum safe level of fluoride in water. While case studies in recent years have documented advanced skeletal fluorosis in the US among high-tea drinkers, the EPA has done no serious analysis of the extent to which the disease may be occurring throughout the country.

-

http://articles.merc





ola.com/sites/articl





es/archive/2011/08/1





0/fluoride-can-damag





e-your-bones.aspx
Fluoridation X-Files.. 60% of all U.S. Children have Dental Fluorosis.. 3% to 4% expected in Southampton?



-

SHA's OWN RESEARCH REVIEW.

The Medical Research Council, when reviewing the York report and taking account of other studies, concluded that a more realistic figure for fluorosis in fluoridated areas within the UK might be between 3% and 4%.

http://tinyurl.com/b




6ewake

-



FLUORIDATION IS NOTHING TO CELEBRATE.

NEW YORK, Jan. 23, 2013.

Fluoride overexposure is a new and GROWING EPIDEMIC AFFLICTING UP TO 60% OF U.S. ADOLESCENTS WITH DENTAL FLUOROSIS (white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth). Early fluoridationists expected that no more than 10% of children would develop mild fluorosis. CDC reports that Black and Mexican-American children suffer significantly higher rates of the more severe forms of dental fluorosis.

Even fluoride varnish, containing 26,600 ppm fluoride, was never safety-tested but is applied to teeth of babies as young as 6-months-old which "leads to a significant increase in urine fluoride."


-

http://www.prnewswir




e.com/news-releases/




fluoridation-is-noth




ing-to-celebrate-188




045531.html
Fluoridation X-Files.. Criminal SHA Bosses to be held responsible for deaths of relatives


-

A date which will live in infamy.. 11 Feb 2011, SHA defeated a High Court legal challenge designed to stop Southampton's Fluoridation.


-


FAMILIES CALL FOR BOSSES TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DEATHS OF RELATIVES.

JONATHAN BROWN WEDNESDAY 06 FEBRUARY 2013.

NHS's darkest day: Five more hospitals under investigation for neglect as report blames 'failings at every level' for 1,200 deaths at Stafford Hospital.

The families of patients who died after receiving substandard care at Stafford Hospital have demanded that senior managers – including the current head of the NHS – be held responsible for the deaths of their loved ones.

Families called for the resignation of Sir David Nicholson, NHS chief executive, who was head of Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority which was responsible for Mid Staffs NHS Trust at the time of the scandal. Some also demanded the head of Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, after the report’s damning verdict on nursing standards.

“The point about criminal prosecution, which I think most people feel, is that perhaps more than a thousand people died because of poor care. No one has been brought to book and that feels wrong,” he told Sky News.

Sir David Nicholson.

Former chief executive of West Midlands Strategic Health Authority and the Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority. He was responsible for supervising Mid Staffs NHS Trust from 2005 to 2006. Yesterday he repeated his apology for the poor care experienced by patients, adding: “But apologies are not enough – we need action, we need to make things happen.”

Cynthia Bower Former chief executive of West Midlands Strategic Health Authority.

The report concluded that Ms Bower’s priorities were directed at finance and restructuring rather than care. “The protection of patients does not figure expressly at all in her priorities, although she would doubtless argue that such a concept underlay all of them,” it found.

Martin Yeates Former chief executive of Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust.

Salary: £180,000.

The report said he failed to appreciate the seriousness of the Trust’s problems and the significance of the mortality figures. "HE WAS THAT MOST DANGEROUS OF LEADERS: ONE WHO WAS PERSUASIVE BUT INEFFECTIVE," IT SAID. RECEIVED £400,000 PAY-OFF AND £1M PENSION POT.

-

http://tinyurl.com/b



4y69cx
Fluoridation X-Files.. SHAs Ignore Warnings & Manipulate Statistics


-

Just my unqualified opinion.. the truth will never see the light of day until all SHA Bosses are held legally culpable for their actions.

going by recent news reports this is just the tip of a pyramid of healthcare negligence.

-


I WARNED STAFFORD BOSSES OF HIGH DEATH RATES, CLAIMS PROFESSOR

By Rosa Silverman8:28AM GMT 18 Jan.

The hospital became engulfed in a scandal after an investigation uncovered up to 1,200 "excess" deaths and a catalogue of failings in patient care between 2005 and 2008.

On a number of occasions from July 2007 onwards, the chief executive of the Mid Staffs Health Care Trust, to which the hospital belonged, had been told in writing that the number of deaths at the hospital appeared high, it was claimed.

THE WARNINGS WERE GIVEN BY PROF SIR BRIAN JARMAN, AN INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITY ON HOSPITAL PERFORMANCE, WHO HAD DEVISED A DEATH RATE ALERT SYSTEM.

His real–time mortality alert system, warning hospitals if death rates were too high, showed that Mid Staffs had a rate above the national average. In 2006, its rate was 27 per cent above the average.

DATA SHOW THAT OTHERS WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE DEATH RATES, AS THE ALERT SYSTEM WAS ACCESSED BY STAFF AT THE TRUST AND IN THE WEST MIDLANDS STRATEGIC HEALTH AUTHORITY REGION AS MANY AS 8,000 TIMES BETWEEN 2005 AND 2009.

The trust was also accused of changing the way it recorded or coded patient deaths, making the figures appear better than they were.

In 2007, it logged less than one per cent of patients admitted to hospital under the NHS palliative care code, which denotes that they would be expected to die. After a change in coding, the following year nearly 35 per cent of patients were reportedly palliative. The trust has denied that the coding was inaccurate.

-

http://tinyurl.com/a


jor65w
Fluoridation X-Files.. Podcast: Ireland/UK Livestock (meat/offal/bone) with skeletal fluorosis sold for human consumption



That's according to a Vet visiting an Abattoir/Slaughterho

use.


Skip to 1:14:40.. Ireland/UK Livestock can drink up to 20 gallons Fluoridated water a day.


Skip to 1:22:30.. MP Tessa Jowell hears no testing for Fluoride contamination.


-


Podcast:


http://tinyurl.com/b

s4v836



also


Podcast:

http://media48.podbe

an.com/pb/3b4dbfa746

00541c72b8d0e1aa804b

70/5119a79b/data1/bl

ogs5/230465/uploads/

2012_fluoride_the_pr

otected_poison.mp3



-


We learn today from UK Scientists that Ireland/UK/Romanian horse (offal/bone) meat may be substandard.

In the case of Ireland/UK I suggest Scientists look for fluorosis and Romania arsenic-contaminatio

n.

-



Romania.. ill-health has been reported due to arsenic-contaminated water.

-


http://www.who.int/w

ater_sanitation_heal

th/en/poster8.pdf

-

Long-term, low level exposure to arsenic in drinking water may increase a person's risk of skin cancer, according to a new study conducted in Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. The study suggests that LEVELS OF INORGANIC ARSENIC PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT TO BE HARMLESS MAY HAVE A CARCINOGENIC EFFECT OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME.

-

http://ec.europa.eu/

environment/integrat

ion/research/newsale

rt/pdf/297na1.pdf
Apologies folks for previous broken URLs..



.


Fluoridation X-Files.. Podcast: Ireland/UK Livestock (meat/offal/bone) with Skeletal Fluorosis sold for human consumption.


That's according to a Vet visiting a UK Abattoir/Slaughterho
use.


Skip to 1:14:40.. Ireland/UK Livestock can drink up to 20 gallons of Fluoridated water a day.


Skip to 1:22:30.. MP Tessa Jowell hears no testing for Fluoride Contamination.


-

Podcast:


http://hampshireagai
nstfluoridation.blog
spot.co.uk/2013/01/p
odcast-powered-by-po
dbean-january-12th.h
tml


also.



Podcast:


http://www.podbean.c
om/podcast-detail?pi
d=63347


-



We learn today from UK Scientists that Ireland/UK/Romanian Horse (offal/bone) meat maybe substandard.


In the case of Ireland/UK I suggest Scientists look for Fluorosis and Romania Arsenic Contamination.

-


Romania.. ill-health has been reported due to Arsenic Contaminated water.

-


http://www.who.int/w
ater_sanitation_heal
th/en/poster8.pdf

-


Long-term, low level exposure to arsenic in drinking water may increase a person's risk of skin cancer, according to a new study conducted in Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. The study suggests that LEVELS OF INORGANIC ARSENIC PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT TO BE HARMLESS MAY HAVE A CARCINOGENIC EFFECT OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME.

-


http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/integrat
ion/research/newsale
rt/pdf/297na1.pdf






I only hope the NHS have the resources to cope with this pending nightmare.. arrogant SHAs are the only ones to blame
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Cairns Council Votes To Dump Fluoride.. Amounts To "Involuntary Medication" .. - Cairns council votes to dump fluoride.. Date.January 30, 2013 - 12:14PM. The Cairns City Council will remove fluoride from its water supply, saying it amounts to the "involuntary medication" of residents. But the council says it won't be doing anything to determine if there's broad community support for fluoridation to continue. "If people want to have access to fluoride, they need to take that up with their dentists," a council spokeswoman said on Wednesday. "The decision has been made ... it shouldn't be forced on people without consent." Fluoridation currently cost the council about $300,000 in chemicals, staffing, testing, electricity and infrastructure, he said. Fluoride will stop being added to the Cairns water supply from the middle of next month. - http://www.brisbanet imes.com.au/queensla nd/cairns-council-vo tes-to-dump-fluoride -20130130-2dk1a.html[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. - THE TEETH OF SOUTHAMPTON'S 5 YEAR OLD'S ARE GENERALLY BETTER THAN THE ENGLAND AVERAGE. In fact tooth decay in our close neighbors 5 year old's, MILTON KEYNES, Reading & Slough are significantly worse than the England average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Here's the killer, MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated.. 1.0 to 1.5 mg/f which is above recommended fluoridation levels - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than Southampton's. - Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES Adult Obesity is Significantly Worse than SHA's Average. Southampton's Adult Obesity is Not Significantly different from SHA's Average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8 - TAP (fluoridated) WATER CAN MAKE YOU FAT, SAY EXPERTS Jul 11 2004. By Caroline Wheeler, Sunday Mercury. Medical experts claim that West Midlands tap water can make people FAT and could be fuelling rising obesity levels. For the past 40 years, fluoride has been pumped into the region's tap water to help keep teeth healthy. But now a top doctor claims that the toxin can cause worrying health side-effects including hypothyroidism, a medical dis-order affecting the thyroid gland which controls weight gain. And he believes that children may be particularly susceptible to obesity if their mums drank fluoridated water while pregnant. LAST YEAR, THE WEST MIDLANDS TOPPED THE UK 'FAT LIST' WITH A SHOCKING 22.5 PER CENT OF ITS POPULATION CLASSED CLINICALLY OBESE. Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield said: "There is no doubt that fluoride is enzyme disruptive and one thing it affects is thyroid hormones. "As a result of this disruption, people can finish up with partial under-activity of the thyroid gland. "Thyroid problems are becoming more common, particularly in Birmingham, and one of the reasons is because of fluoride in the water." - http://tinyurl.com/a jtcvgm[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than Southampton/England - Going by SHA's own 2010 Indicators. Naturally Fluoridated MILTON KEYNES has Significantly More Hip fractures in the over-65s than the England Average. Southampton, the numbers of over-65s with hip fractures are not significantly different from the England average. - www.apho.org.uk/reso urce/view.aspx?RID=9 5375 - Please note MILTON KEYNES is naturally fluoridated at 1.0 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l - http://tinyurl.com/b 8m9wh8 - THE CRIPPLING (FLUORIDE )TOXIN YOU KNOWINGLY CONSUME EVERY DAY... August 10, 2011 The fact that fluoride can damage your bones, often quite seriously, is no longer in dispute. Just ask the millions of people throughout the world who currently suffer from skeletal fluorosis—a crippling bone disease caused by too much fluoride and marked by irregular bone growth and calcification of the joints. Of course, it takes a high dose of fluoride to cause crippling fluorosis. BUT FLUORIDE ACCUMULATES OVER TIME, SO THE SEVERITY OF SKELETAL FLUOROSIS EXISTS ALONG A CONTINUUM, WITH THE EARLIER STAGES PRODUCED BY LOWER DOSES AND MARKED BY MORE SUBTLE SYMPTOMS, SUCH AS JOINT PAIN AND STIFFNESS. In 2006, skeletal fluorosis was identified by the US National Research Council (NRC) as an adverse effect that needs to be considered by the EPA when lowering the maximum safe level of fluoride in water. While case studies in recent years have documented advanced skeletal fluorosis in the US among high-tea drinkers, the EPA has done no serious analysis of the extent to which the disease may be occurring throughout the country. - http://articles.merc ola.com/sites/articl es/archive/2011/08/1 0/fluoride-can-damag e-your-bones.aspx[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. 60% of all U.S. Children have Dental Fluorosis.. 3% to 4% expected in Southampton? - SHA's OWN RESEARCH REVIEW. The Medical Research Council, when reviewing the York report and taking account of other studies, concluded that a more realistic figure for fluorosis in fluoridated areas within the UK might be between 3% and 4%. http://tinyurl.com/b 6ewake - FLUORIDATION IS NOTHING TO CELEBRATE. NEW YORK, Jan. 23, 2013. Fluoride overexposure is a new and GROWING EPIDEMIC AFFLICTING UP TO 60% OF U.S. ADOLESCENTS WITH DENTAL FLUOROSIS (white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth). Early fluoridationists expected that no more than 10% of children would develop mild fluorosis. CDC reports that Black and Mexican-American children suffer significantly higher rates of the more severe forms of dental fluorosis. Even fluoride varnish, containing 26,600 ppm fluoride, was never safety-tested but is applied to teeth of babies as young as 6-months-old which "leads to a significant increase in urine fluoride." - http://www.prnewswir e.com/news-releases/ fluoridation-is-noth ing-to-celebrate-188 045531.html[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. Criminal SHA Bosses to be held responsible for deaths of relatives - A date which will live in infamy.. 11 Feb 2011, SHA defeated a High Court legal challenge designed to stop Southampton's Fluoridation. - FAMILIES CALL FOR BOSSES TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DEATHS OF RELATIVES. JONATHAN BROWN WEDNESDAY 06 FEBRUARY 2013. NHS's darkest day: Five more hospitals under investigation for neglect as report blames 'failings at every level' for 1,200 deaths at Stafford Hospital. The families of patients who died after receiving substandard care at Stafford Hospital have demanded that senior managers – including the current head of the NHS – be held responsible for the deaths of their loved ones. Families called for the resignation of Sir David Nicholson, NHS chief executive, who was head of Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority which was responsible for Mid Staffs NHS Trust at the time of the scandal. Some also demanded the head of Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, after the report’s damning verdict on nursing standards. “The point about criminal prosecution, which I think most people feel, is that perhaps more than a thousand people died because of poor care. No one has been brought to book and that feels wrong,” he told Sky News. Sir David Nicholson. Former chief executive of West Midlands Strategic Health Authority and the Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority. He was responsible for supervising Mid Staffs NHS Trust from 2005 to 2006. Yesterday he repeated his apology for the poor care experienced by patients, adding: “But apologies are not enough – we need action, we need to make things happen.” Cynthia Bower Former chief executive of West Midlands Strategic Health Authority. The report concluded that Ms Bower’s priorities were directed at finance and restructuring rather than care. “The protection of patients does not figure expressly at all in her priorities, although she would doubtless argue that such a concept underlay all of them,” it found. Martin Yeates Former chief executive of Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust. Salary: £180,000. The report said he failed to appreciate the seriousness of the Trust’s problems and the significance of the mortality figures. "HE WAS THAT MOST DANGEROUS OF LEADERS: ONE WHO WAS PERSUASIVE BUT INEFFECTIVE," IT SAID. RECEIVED £400,000 PAY-OFF AND £1M PENSION POT. - http://tinyurl.com/b 4y69cx[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. SHAs Ignore Warnings & Manipulate Statistics - Just my unqualified opinion.. the truth will never see the light of day until all SHA Bosses are held legally culpable for their actions. going by recent news reports this is just the tip of a pyramid of healthcare negligence. - I WARNED STAFFORD BOSSES OF HIGH DEATH RATES, CLAIMS PROFESSOR By Rosa Silverman8:28AM GMT 18 Jan. The hospital became engulfed in a scandal after an investigation uncovered up to 1,200 "excess" deaths and a catalogue of failings in patient care between 2005 and 2008. On a number of occasions from July 2007 onwards, the chief executive of the Mid Staffs Health Care Trust, to which the hospital belonged, had been told in writing that the number of deaths at the hospital appeared high, it was claimed. THE WARNINGS WERE GIVEN BY PROF SIR BRIAN JARMAN, AN INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITY ON HOSPITAL PERFORMANCE, WHO HAD DEVISED A DEATH RATE ALERT SYSTEM. His real–time mortality alert system, warning hospitals if death rates were too high, showed that Mid Staffs had a rate above the national average. In 2006, its rate was 27 per cent above the average. DATA SHOW THAT OTHERS WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE DEATH RATES, AS THE ALERT SYSTEM WAS ACCESSED BY STAFF AT THE TRUST AND IN THE WEST MIDLANDS STRATEGIC HEALTH AUTHORITY REGION AS MANY AS 8,000 TIMES BETWEEN 2005 AND 2009. The trust was also accused of changing the way it recorded or coded patient deaths, making the figures appear better than they were. In 2007, it logged less than one per cent of patients admitted to hospital under the NHS palliative care code, which denotes that they would be expected to die. After a change in coding, the following year nearly 35 per cent of patients were reportedly palliative. The trust has denied that the coding was inaccurate. - http://tinyurl.com/a jor65w[/p][/quote]Fluoridation X-Files.. Podcast: Ireland/UK Livestock (meat/offal/bone) with skeletal fluorosis sold for human consumption That's according to a Vet visiting an Abattoir/Slaughterho use. Skip to 1:14:40.. Ireland/UK Livestock can drink up to 20 gallons Fluoridated water a day. Skip to 1:22:30.. MP Tessa Jowell hears no testing for Fluoride contamination. - Podcast: http://tinyurl.com/b s4v836 also Podcast: http://media48.podbe an.com/pb/3b4dbfa746 00541c72b8d0e1aa804b 70/5119a79b/data1/bl ogs5/230465/uploads/ 2012_fluoride_the_pr otected_poison.mp3 - We learn today from UK Scientists that Ireland/UK/Romanian horse (offal/bone) meat may be substandard. In the case of Ireland/UK I suggest Scientists look for fluorosis and Romania arsenic-contaminatio n. - Romania.. ill-health has been reported due to arsenic-contaminated water. - http://www.who.int/w ater_sanitation_heal th/en/poster8.pdf - Long-term, low level exposure to arsenic in drinking water may increase a person's risk of skin cancer, according to a new study conducted in Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. The study suggests that LEVELS OF INORGANIC ARSENIC PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT TO BE HARMLESS MAY HAVE A CARCINOGENIC EFFECT OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME. - http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/integrat ion/research/newsale rt/pdf/297na1.pdf[/p][/quote]Apologies folks for previous broken URLs.. . Fluoridation X-Files.. Podcast: Ireland/UK Livestock (meat/offal/bone) with Skeletal Fluorosis sold for human consumption. That's according to a Vet visiting a UK Abattoir/Slaughterho use. Skip to 1:14:40.. Ireland/UK Livestock can drink up to 20 gallons of Fluoridated water a day. Skip to 1:22:30.. MP Tessa Jowell hears no testing for Fluoride Contamination. - Podcast: http://hampshireagai nstfluoridation.blog spot.co.uk/2013/01/p odcast-powered-by-po dbean-january-12th.h tml also. Podcast: http://www.podbean.c om/podcast-detail?pi d=63347 - We learn today from UK Scientists that Ireland/UK/Romanian Horse (offal/bone) meat maybe substandard. In the case of Ireland/UK I suggest Scientists look for Fluorosis and Romania Arsenic Contamination. - Romania.. ill-health has been reported due to Arsenic Contaminated water. - http://www.who.int/w ater_sanitation_heal th/en/poster8.pdf - Long-term, low level exposure to arsenic in drinking water may increase a person's risk of skin cancer, according to a new study conducted in Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. The study suggests that LEVELS OF INORGANIC ARSENIC PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT TO BE HARMLESS MAY HAVE A CARCINOGENIC EFFECT OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME. - http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/integrat ion/research/newsale rt/pdf/297na1.pdf I only hope the NHS have the resources to cope with this pending nightmare.. arrogant SHAs are the only ones to blame Dan Soton

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree