Fluoride branded ‘brain danger’ to our children

Daily Echo: Fluoride branded ‘brain danger’ to our children Fluoride branded ‘brain danger’ to our children

CAMPAIGNERS have called for Hampshire’s controversial fluoridation scheme to be scrapped after a damning report in a leading medical journal.

The report says that exposing youngsters to fluoride could lead to brain damage and reduced IQ, and calls for urgent tests to determine its effect.

It comes after a change in Euro-pean Union law came into effect, stating a key chemical needed to carry out fluoridation of tap water – known as hexafluorosilicic acid – is not on the list of materials which should be added to drinking water or food.

However, the ultimate power as to whether to introduce fluoridation still lies in the hands of public health authorities, in this case Public Health England (PHE).

PHE still insists it will put the chemical into the drinking water of 200,000 residents in Southampton, Totton, Eastleigh, Rownhams and Netley, despite staunch opposition from campaigners and local councils. It took over the responsibility of the scheme from the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA), axed last year.

Southampton City Council and Hampshire County Council are locked in a legal struggle with PHE, saying that the fluoridation scheme does not exist due to a failure to hand over key documents between the SHA and PHE.

Leading paediatrician Philip J Landrigan and Philippe Grandjean, a professor of environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health, who wrote the report in The Lancet publication, say recent research has led them to define fluoride as a developmental neurotoxin – a chemical that can have a negative impact on the human body – alongside chemicals such as lead and arsenic.

They say they have looked at 27 studies on children exposed to fluoride in drinking water in China, which on average resulted in a loss of seven IQ points.

And their report states that “developmental neurotoxicity causes brain damage that is too often untreatable and frequently permanent”, as well as a similar loss of brain power as that caused by a traumatic brain injury or brain tumours.

Saying the effects of a number of newly-identified neurotoxins, including fluoride, are not known fully, they have urged health authorities to carry out tests for the full extent of their impact.

Anti-fluoride campaigners in Hampshire have renewed calls for PHE to scrap fluoridation in the wake of the report.

John Spottiswood, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, said: “I think this is the final nail in the coffin for fluoride.

“One of the most worrying things is the potential damage to children. This shows that putting fluoride in our water is putting our children at risk – it’s irresponsible, dangerous and deeply immoral.”

And Carol Scarborough, from Shirley in Southampton, said: “The Lancet report is the latest in a long line of research findings that have identified fluoride as a developmental neurotoxin of danger to our children, with implications of serious health problems in later life.

“The evidence in this report should be the alarm bell to end the fluoridation policy immediately and settle the local debate once and for all.”

The Daily Echo asked PHE to comment, but the organisation had not done so by the time the Echo went to print.

Comments (53)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:47am Fri 28 Feb 14

SotonGreen says...

Dailyecho you should be ashamed with your scaremongering.

The paper can be found here http://press.thelanc
et.com/chemicals.pdf


It doesn't call for urgent action. It isn't based on new research. It does reference existing cross sectional studies from China but doesn't rule out possibility of these studies being contaminated by presence of other chemicals. It also needs to be pointed out that the levels are much higher than would be obtained through the proposed intervention.

Finally this research is exactly the same as work these guys did in 2006 hardly a news story.
Dailyecho you should be ashamed with your scaremongering. The paper can be found here http://press.thelanc et.com/chemicals.pdf It doesn't call for urgent action. It isn't based on new research. It does reference existing cross sectional studies from China but doesn't rule out possibility of these studies being contaminated by presence of other chemicals. It also needs to be pointed out that the levels are much higher than would be obtained through the proposed intervention. Finally this research is exactly the same as work these guys did in 2006 hardly a news story. SotonGreen
  • Score: -18

9:03am Fri 28 Feb 14

Santa Retfordia says...

What does everyone think about the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre?
What does everyone think about the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre? Santa Retfordia
  • Score: -10

9:05am Fri 28 Feb 14

Linesman says...

The water supply in the Midlands has been fluoridated for more than half a century. Can these protesters show what damage it has caused during that period?

There are always sheep that will follow a few Nuts who comes up with a protest.
The water supply in the Midlands has been fluoridated for more than half a century. Can these protesters show what damage it has caused during that period? There are always sheep that will follow a few Nuts who comes up with a protest. Linesman
  • Score: -15

9:29am Fri 28 Feb 14

dacoo says...

Santa Retfordia wrote:
What does everyone think about the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre?
i've got to be honest i'm dead against it...........people don't realise traders need access to diiixxoons
[quote][p][bold]Santa Retfordia[/bold] wrote: What does everyone think about the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre?[/p][/quote]i've got to be honest i'm dead against it...........people don't realise traders need access to diiixxoons dacoo
  • Score: 11

9:36am Fri 28 Feb 14

bluejune62 says...

so your ok with drinking and bathing in toxic waste chemicals??
so your ok with drinking and bathing in toxic waste chemicals?? bluejune62
  • Score: 6

9:43am Fri 28 Feb 14

Santa Retfordia says...

dacoo wrote:
Santa Retfordia wrote:
What does everyone think about the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre?
i've got to be honest i'm dead against it...........people don't realise traders need access to diiixxoons
What aboot the mams with their bairns and their pushchairs?
[quote][p][bold]dacoo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Santa Retfordia[/bold] wrote: What does everyone think about the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre?[/p][/quote]i've got to be honest i'm dead against it...........people don't realise traders need access to diiixxoons[/p][/quote]What aboot the mams with their bairns and their pushchairs? Santa Retfordia
  • Score: -11

9:50am Fri 28 Feb 14

SotonGreen says...

If the "toxic" chemicals improve my overall level of health you bet I am.
If the "toxic" chemicals improve my overall level of health you bet I am. SotonGreen
  • Score: -13

10:50am Fri 28 Feb 14

Linesman says...

bluejune62 wrote:
so your ok with drinking and bathing in toxic waste chemicals??
Have you checked what toxic chemicals are already used in the 'purification' process of our current water supply?
[quote][p][bold]bluejune62[/bold] wrote: so your ok with drinking and bathing in toxic waste chemicals??[/p][/quote]Have you checked what toxic chemicals are already used in the 'purification' process of our current water supply? Linesman
  • Score: -10

10:59am Fri 28 Feb 14

cliffwalker says...

SotonGreen wrote:
Dailyecho you should be ashamed with your scaremongering.

The paper can be found here http://press.thelanc

et.com/chemicals.pdf



It doesn't call for urgent action. It isn't based on new research. It does reference existing cross sectional studies from China but doesn't rule out possibility of these studies being contaminated by presence of other chemicals. It also needs to be pointed out that the levels are much higher than would be obtained through the proposed intervention.

Finally this research is exactly the same as work these guys did in 2006 hardly a news story.
I note that the report also says that genetic factors seem to be responsible for 30 to 40 percent of cases of neurodevelopmental disorders. I think we should be demanding that no genes are used in the production of our children as they seem to be nearly as dangerous as all the other possible factors put together..
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Dailyecho you should be ashamed with your scaremongering. The paper can be found here http://press.thelanc et.com/chemicals.pdf It doesn't call for urgent action. It isn't based on new research. It does reference existing cross sectional studies from China but doesn't rule out possibility of these studies being contaminated by presence of other chemicals. It also needs to be pointed out that the levels are much higher than would be obtained through the proposed intervention. Finally this research is exactly the same as work these guys did in 2006 hardly a news story.[/p][/quote]I note that the report also says that genetic factors seem to be responsible for 30 to 40 percent of cases of neurodevelopmental disorders. I think we should be demanding that no genes are used in the production of our children as they seem to be nearly as dangerous as all the other possible factors put together.. cliffwalker
  • Score: -13

11:29am Fri 28 Feb 14

Rhombus says...

Santa Retfordia wrote:
What does everyone think about the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre?
that place is a maze
[quote][p][bold]Santa Retfordia[/bold] wrote: What does everyone think about the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre?[/p][/quote]that place is a maze Rhombus
  • Score: -13

11:41am Fri 28 Feb 14

Dan Soton says...

Good on the Echo.. I posted the below fluoride NEUROTOXIN news four days ago, an Echo staff member must've read it.



-

Just one drop more in a tidal wave of evidence against fluoridation



FLUORIDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS TO BRAINS.

NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2014.

- Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains.

FLUORIDE IS NEWLY CLASSIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXIN BY MEDICAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARCH 2014 JOURNAL LANCET NEUROLOGY. The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine.

The authors write "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations." The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter.

DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXINS ARE CAPABLE OF CAUSING WIDESPREAD BRAIN DISORDERS SUCH AS AUTISM, ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, LEARNING DISABILITIES, AND OTHER COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS. THE HARM IS OFTEN UNTREATABLE AND PERMANENT.

Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries."
The authors say it's crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children's brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity.

"Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us."

PAUL CONNETT, PHD, FAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAYS, "IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDE AS A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN, ADDING MORE FLUORIDE TO AMERICAN'S ALREADY EXCESSIVE INTAKE NO LONGER HAS ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO REDUCE FLUORIDE INTAKE, NOT INCREASE IT."

The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers.

But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposur


e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing.

Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains."



,,

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/yoursay/lette
rs/11008629.What___s
_wrong_with_clean__p
ure_water_/
Good on the Echo.. I posted the below fluoride NEUROTOXIN news four days ago, an Echo staff member must've read it. - Just one drop more in a tidal wave of evidence against fluoridation FLUORIDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS TO BRAINS. NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2014. - Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains. FLUORIDE IS NEWLY CLASSIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXIN BY MEDICAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARCH 2014 JOURNAL LANCET NEUROLOGY. The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine. The authors write "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations." The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter. DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXINS ARE CAPABLE OF CAUSING WIDESPREAD BRAIN DISORDERS SUCH AS AUTISM, ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, LEARNING DISABILITIES, AND OTHER COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS. THE HARM IS OFTEN UNTREATABLE AND PERMANENT. Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries." The authors say it's crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children's brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity. "Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us." PAUL CONNETT, PHD, FAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAYS, "IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDE AS A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN, ADDING MORE FLUORIDE TO AMERICAN'S ALREADY EXCESSIVE INTAKE NO LONGER HAS ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO REDUCE FLUORIDE INTAKE, NOT INCREASE IT." The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers. But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposur e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing. Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains." ,, http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/yoursay/lette rs/11008629.What___s _wrong_with_clean__p ure_water_/ Dan Soton
  • Score: 15

11:43am Fri 28 Feb 14

gilbertratchet says...

bluejune62 wrote:
so your ok with drinking and bathing in toxic waste chemicals??
Do you understand what the word 'toxic' means? I'm going to bet that you don't.
[quote][p][bold]bluejune62[/bold] wrote: so your ok with drinking and bathing in toxic waste chemicals??[/p][/quote]Do you understand what the word 'toxic' means? I'm going to bet that you don't. gilbertratchet
  • Score: -10

11:45am Fri 28 Feb 14

gilbertratchet says...

Santa Retfordia wrote:
What does everyone think about the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre?
I think it's a good idea, cos of all the mothers with bairns in prams and stuff.
[quote][p][bold]Santa Retfordia[/bold] wrote: What does everyone think about the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre?[/p][/quote]I think it's a good idea, cos of all the mothers with bairns in prams and stuff. gilbertratchet
  • Score: -8

12:38pm Fri 28 Feb 14

charrlee says...

It's got a lot to do with choice. Any "mass" process deprives the individual of their right to freedom of choice. Bottled water to drink is no solution - buying it and storing it would be such an arduous task each week/month.
It's got a lot to do with choice. Any "mass" process deprives the individual of their right to freedom of choice. Bottled water to drink is no solution - buying it and storing it would be such an arduous task each week/month. charrlee
  • Score: 15

12:42pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Good on the Echo.. I posted the below fluoride NEUROTOXIN news four days ago, an Echo staff member must've read it.



-

Just one drop more in a tidal wave of evidence against fluoridation



FLUORIDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS TO BRAINS.

NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2014.

- Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains.

FLUORIDE IS NEWLY CLASSIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXIN BY MEDICAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARCH 2014 JOURNAL LANCET NEUROLOGY. The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine.

The authors write "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations." The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter.

DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXINS ARE CAPABLE OF CAUSING WIDESPREAD BRAIN DISORDERS SUCH AS AUTISM, ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, LEARNING DISABILITIES, AND OTHER COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS. THE HARM IS OFTEN UNTREATABLE AND PERMANENT.

Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries."
The authors say it's crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children's brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity.

"Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us."

PAUL CONNETT, PHD, FAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAYS, "IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDE AS A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN, ADDING MORE FLUORIDE TO AMERICAN'S ALREADY EXCESSIVE INTAKE NO LONGER HAS ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO REDUCE FLUORIDE INTAKE, NOT INCREASE IT."

The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers.

But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposur



e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing.

Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains."



,,

http://www.dailyecho

.co.uk/yoursay/lette

rs/11008629.What___s

_wrong_with_clean__p

ure_water_/
,,

Looks like Southampton has copped a £19m air pollution fine and if that's not bad enough the South Central Strategic Health Authority wants to put a NEUROTOXIN in our drinking water.. more EU fines!!

No doubt in my mind.. members of the South Central Strategic Health Authority will be in the firing line when Southampton is (EU) fined for dumping toxic waste into our drinking water.

-

UK FACES £300M FINE OVER FAILURE TO MEET AIR POLLUTION TARGETS BY 2010.

IAN JOHNSTON Thursday 20 February 2014.

poor air quality is the number one environmental cause of premature death in the EU with a toll that outstrips road traffic accidents.

"It is an invisible killer and it prevents many people from living a fully active life. It already costs Europe €330bn-€940bn (£277bn-£789bn) a year in extra health costs and prematurely killed over 100,000 people a year," he said last year.

CITY-DWELLERS ARE PARTICULARLY EXPOSED, AS MOST NITROGEN DIOXIDE ORIGINATES IN TRAFFIC FUMES … AIR POLLUTION LIMITS ARE REGULARLY EXCEEDED IN 16 ZONES ACROSS THE UK.

The affected areas are Greater London, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Teesside, the Potteries, Hull, SOUTHAMPTON, Glasgow, the east, the south-east, the east Midlands, Merseyside, Yorkshire & Humberside, the west Midlands, and the north-east. But the commission said that Britain had not presented any "credible and workable plan" for meeting air quality standards by 2015

-
http://www.theguardi
an.com/environment/2
014/feb/20/air-pollu
tion-european-commis
sion-legal-action-uk
-nitrogen-dioxide




,,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Good on the Echo.. I posted the below fluoride NEUROTOXIN news four days ago, an Echo staff member must've read it. - Just one drop more in a tidal wave of evidence against fluoridation FLUORIDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS TO BRAINS. NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2014. - Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains. FLUORIDE IS NEWLY CLASSIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXIN BY MEDICAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARCH 2014 JOURNAL LANCET NEUROLOGY. The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine. The authors write "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations." The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter. DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXINS ARE CAPABLE OF CAUSING WIDESPREAD BRAIN DISORDERS SUCH AS AUTISM, ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, LEARNING DISABILITIES, AND OTHER COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS. THE HARM IS OFTEN UNTREATABLE AND PERMANENT. Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries." The authors say it's crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children's brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity. "Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us." PAUL CONNETT, PHD, FAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAYS, "IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDE AS A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN, ADDING MORE FLUORIDE TO AMERICAN'S ALREADY EXCESSIVE INTAKE NO LONGER HAS ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO REDUCE FLUORIDE INTAKE, NOT INCREASE IT." The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers. But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposur e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing. Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains." ,, http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/yoursay/lette rs/11008629.What___s _wrong_with_clean__p ure_water_/[/p][/quote],, Looks like Southampton has copped a £19m air pollution fine and if that's not bad enough the South Central Strategic Health Authority wants to put a NEUROTOXIN in our drinking water.. more EU fines!! No doubt in my mind.. members of the South Central Strategic Health Authority will be in the firing line when Southampton is (EU) fined for dumping toxic waste into our drinking water. - UK FACES £300M FINE OVER FAILURE TO MEET AIR POLLUTION TARGETS BY 2010. IAN JOHNSTON Thursday 20 February 2014. poor air quality is the number one environmental cause of premature death in the EU with a toll that outstrips road traffic accidents. "It is an invisible killer and it prevents many people from living a fully active life. It already costs Europe €330bn-€940bn (£277bn-£789bn) a year in extra health costs and prematurely killed over 100,000 people a year," he said last year. CITY-DWELLERS ARE PARTICULARLY EXPOSED, AS MOST NITROGEN DIOXIDE ORIGINATES IN TRAFFIC FUMES … AIR POLLUTION LIMITS ARE REGULARLY EXCEEDED IN 16 ZONES ACROSS THE UK. The affected areas are Greater London, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Teesside, the Potteries, Hull, SOUTHAMPTON, Glasgow, the east, the south-east, the east Midlands, Merseyside, Yorkshire & Humberside, the west Midlands, and the north-east. But the commission said that Britain had not presented any "credible and workable plan" for meeting air quality standards by 2015 - http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/2 014/feb/20/air-pollu tion-european-commis sion-legal-action-uk -nitrogen-dioxide ,,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 13

12:51pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Dan Soton says...

Linesman wrote:
The water supply in the Midlands has been fluoridated for more than half a century. Can these protesters show what damage it has caused during that period?

There are always sheep that will follow a few Nuts who comes up with a protest.
,,

Linesman.. PHE should be reconsidering their decision to force Fluoridation on Southampton given the news that Fluoride has been newly classified as a dangerous to life NEUROTOXIN but they won't because their not qualified to... As far as I know there's no Professors of Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology on PHE's Board..

Linesman.. would you like to reconsider, are your qualified?..



,,,
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: The water supply in the Midlands has been fluoridated for more than half a century. Can these protesters show what damage it has caused during that period? There are always sheep that will follow a few Nuts who comes up with a protest.[/p][/quote],, Linesman.. PHE should be reconsidering their decision to force Fluoridation on Southampton given the news that Fluoride has been newly classified as a dangerous to life NEUROTOXIN but they won't because their not qualified to... As far as I know there's no Professors of Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology on PHE's Board.. Linesman.. would you like to reconsider, are your qualified?.. ,,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 18

12:52pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Dan Soton says...

Linesman wrote:
The water supply in the Midlands has been fluoridated for more than half a century. Can these protesters show what damage it has caused during that period?

There are always sheep that will follow a few Nuts who comes up with a protest.
,,

Linesman.. PHE should be reconsidering their decision to force Fluoridation on Southampton given the news that Fluoride has been newly classified as a dangerous to life NEUROTOXIN but they won't because their not qualified to... As far as I know there's no Professors of Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology on PHE's Board..

Linesman.. would you like to reconsider, are you qualified?


,,
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: The water supply in the Midlands has been fluoridated for more than half a century. Can these protesters show what damage it has caused during that period? There are always sheep that will follow a few Nuts who comes up with a protest.[/p][/quote],, Linesman.. PHE should be reconsidering their decision to force Fluoridation on Southampton given the news that Fluoride has been newly classified as a dangerous to life NEUROTOXIN but they won't because their not qualified to... As far as I know there's no Professors of Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology on PHE's Board.. Linesman.. would you like to reconsider, are you qualified? ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 13

2:14pm Fri 28 Feb 14

waggers5 says...

This report is ridiculously biassed, as we've come to expect from the Echo. The Lancet paper was submitted by two American academics but lacks the evidence and peer review required to make it meaningful. Respected experts on the subject from much closer to home dispute its credibility:

“Because the paper lacks rigour, it is impossible to assess the validity of the authors’ claims, many of which seem highly speculative. The conclusions of more focused and thorough reviews have been less alarming,” said David Coggon of the University of Southampton’s Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit.
(http://www.rawstory
.com/rs/2014/02/14/d
isputed-study-links-
fluoride-other-chemi
cals-to-erosion-of-c
hild-iqs/)

The evidence for the health benefits of fluoride in tap water is overwhelming. The evidence against is severely lacking. No amount of scaremongering by little Englanders and the tabloid media is going to change those facts and it's absolutely right that PHE push ahead with the project.
This report is ridiculously biassed, as we've come to expect from the Echo. The Lancet paper was submitted by two American academics but lacks the evidence and peer review required to make it meaningful. Respected experts on the subject from much closer to home dispute its credibility: “Because the paper lacks rigour, it is impossible to assess the validity of the authors’ claims, many of which seem highly speculative. The conclusions of more focused and thorough reviews have been less alarming,” said David Coggon of the University of Southampton’s Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit. (http://www.rawstory .com/rs/2014/02/14/d isputed-study-links- fluoride-other-chemi cals-to-erosion-of-c hild-iqs/) The evidence for the health benefits of fluoride in tap water is overwhelming. The evidence against is severely lacking. No amount of scaremongering by little Englanders and the tabloid media is going to change those facts and it's absolutely right that PHE push ahead with the project. waggers5
  • Score: -21

2:41pm Fri 28 Feb 14

gilbertratchet says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Good on the Echo.. I posted the below fluoride NEUROTOXIN news four days ago, an Echo staff member must've read it.



-

Just one drop more in a tidal wave of evidence against fluoridation



FLUORIDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS TO BRAINS.

NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2014.

- Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains.

FLUORIDE IS NEWLY CLASSIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXIN BY MEDICAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARCH 2014 JOURNAL LANCET NEUROLOGY. The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine.

The authors write "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations." The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter.

DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXINS ARE CAPABLE OF CAUSING WIDESPREAD BRAIN DISORDERS SUCH AS AUTISM, ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, LEARNING DISABILITIES, AND OTHER COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS. THE HARM IS OFTEN UNTREATABLE AND PERMANENT.

Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries."
The authors say it's crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children's brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity.

"Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us."

PAUL CONNETT, PHD, FAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAYS, "IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDE AS A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN, ADDING MORE FLUORIDE TO AMERICAN'S ALREADY EXCESSIVE INTAKE NO LONGER HAS ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO REDUCE FLUORIDE INTAKE, NOT INCREASE IT."

The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers.

But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposur




e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing.

Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains."



,,

http://www.dailyecho


.co.uk/yoursay/lette


rs/11008629.What___s


_wrong_with_clean__p


ure_water_/
,,

Looks like Southampton has copped a £19m air pollution fine and if that's not bad enough the South Central Strategic Health Authority wants to put a NEUROTOXIN in our drinking water.. more EU fines!!

No doubt in my mind.. members of the South Central Strategic Health Authority will be in the firing line when Southampton is (EU) fined for dumping toxic waste into our drinking water.

-

UK FACES £300M FINE OVER FAILURE TO MEET AIR POLLUTION TARGETS BY 2010.

IAN JOHNSTON Thursday 20 February 2014.

poor air quality is the number one environmental cause of premature death in the EU with a toll that outstrips road traffic accidents.

"It is an invisible killer and it prevents many people from living a fully active life. It already costs Europe €330bn-€940bn (£277bn-£789bn) a year in extra health costs and prematurely killed over 100,000 people a year," he said last year.

CITY-DWELLERS ARE PARTICULARLY EXPOSED, AS MOST NITROGEN DIOXIDE ORIGINATES IN TRAFFIC FUMES … AIR POLLUTION LIMITS ARE REGULARLY EXCEEDED IN 16 ZONES ACROSS THE UK.

The affected areas are Greater London, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Teesside, the Potteries, Hull, SOUTHAMPTON, Glasgow, the east, the south-east, the east Midlands, Merseyside, Yorkshire & Humberside, the west Midlands, and the north-east. But the commission said that Britain had not presented any "credible and workable plan" for meeting air quality standards by 2015

-
http://www.theguardi

an.com/environment/2

014/feb/20/air-pollu

tion-european-commis

sion-legal-action-uk

-nitrogen-dioxide




,,,
Nobody's actually reading this. If you have something else to contribute other than copypasta, go for it.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Good on the Echo.. I posted the below fluoride NEUROTOXIN news four days ago, an Echo staff member must've read it. - Just one drop more in a tidal wave of evidence against fluoridation FLUORIDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS TO BRAINS. NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2014. - Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains. FLUORIDE IS NEWLY CLASSIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXIN BY MEDICAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARCH 2014 JOURNAL LANCET NEUROLOGY. The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine. The authors write "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations." The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter. DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXINS ARE CAPABLE OF CAUSING WIDESPREAD BRAIN DISORDERS SUCH AS AUTISM, ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, LEARNING DISABILITIES, AND OTHER COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS. THE HARM IS OFTEN UNTREATABLE AND PERMANENT. Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries." The authors say it's crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children's brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity. "Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us." PAUL CONNETT, PHD, FAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAYS, "IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDE AS A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN, ADDING MORE FLUORIDE TO AMERICAN'S ALREADY EXCESSIVE INTAKE NO LONGER HAS ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO REDUCE FLUORIDE INTAKE, NOT INCREASE IT." The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers. But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposur e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing. Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains." ,, http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/yoursay/lette rs/11008629.What___s _wrong_with_clean__p ure_water_/[/p][/quote],, Looks like Southampton has copped a £19m air pollution fine and if that's not bad enough the South Central Strategic Health Authority wants to put a NEUROTOXIN in our drinking water.. more EU fines!! No doubt in my mind.. members of the South Central Strategic Health Authority will be in the firing line when Southampton is (EU) fined for dumping toxic waste into our drinking water. - UK FACES £300M FINE OVER FAILURE TO MEET AIR POLLUTION TARGETS BY 2010. IAN JOHNSTON Thursday 20 February 2014. poor air quality is the number one environmental cause of premature death in the EU with a toll that outstrips road traffic accidents. "It is an invisible killer and it prevents many people from living a fully active life. It already costs Europe €330bn-€940bn (£277bn-£789bn) a year in extra health costs and prematurely killed over 100,000 people a year," he said last year. CITY-DWELLERS ARE PARTICULARLY EXPOSED, AS MOST NITROGEN DIOXIDE ORIGINATES IN TRAFFIC FUMES … AIR POLLUTION LIMITS ARE REGULARLY EXCEEDED IN 16 ZONES ACROSS THE UK. The affected areas are Greater London, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Teesside, the Potteries, Hull, SOUTHAMPTON, Glasgow, the east, the south-east, the east Midlands, Merseyside, Yorkshire & Humberside, the west Midlands, and the north-east. But the commission said that Britain had not presented any "credible and workable plan" for meeting air quality standards by 2015 - http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/2 014/feb/20/air-pollu tion-european-commis sion-legal-action-uk -nitrogen-dioxide ,,,[/p][/quote]Nobody's actually reading this. If you have something else to contribute other than copypasta, go for it. gilbertratchet
  • Score: -19

3:47pm Fri 28 Feb 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

charrlee wrote:
It's got a lot to do with choice. Any "mass" process deprives the individual of their right to freedom of choice. Bottled water to drink is no solution - buying it and storing it would be such an arduous task each week/month.
By that logic, I'd rather my tap water came straight from the river - it's more 'natural' that way. But no, the pesky water company insist on cleaning it up and purifying it before it gets here. Those mass processes eh? They've deprived me of my freedom of choice.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: It's got a lot to do with choice. Any "mass" process deprives the individual of their right to freedom of choice. Bottled water to drink is no solution - buying it and storing it would be such an arduous task each week/month.[/p][/quote]By that logic, I'd rather my tap water came straight from the river - it's more 'natural' that way. But no, the pesky water company insist on cleaning it up and purifying it before it gets here. Those mass processes eh? They've deprived me of my freedom of choice. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: -19

4:41pm Fri 28 Feb 14

SotonGreen says...

Also all flour derived from wheat except whole meal flour must be enriched by law with calcium carbonate, iron and thiamin (vitamin B1). This also mass medication and iron is toxic in animal and human studies at sufficient dosages.

Where is the campaign against flour when we need them ?
Also all flour derived from wheat except whole meal flour must be enriched by law with calcium carbonate, iron and thiamin (vitamin B1). This also mass medication and iron is toxic in animal and human studies at sufficient dosages. Where is the campaign against flour when we need them ? SotonGreen
  • Score: -16

9:09pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Ryan Cannard says...

In ten regions across the north the PHE were all set to introduce a dental milk scheme (milk with added fluoride) targeting school children and was in it's final stages before going public, next came an announcement from the PHE putting the scheme on hold,

A study from Newcastle University showed elevated levels of fluoride in the children who drank dental milk, the PHE are now investigating that study.
The story first appeared in the Blackpool Gazette and was taken down within a day of release. No other paper ran the story, perhaps it should of been a story of incompetence and failure by Public Health England for not doing the research. One can only wonder at the outcome of the dental milk scheme had this Newcastle study not seen the light.
In ten regions across the north the PHE were all set to introduce a dental milk scheme (milk with added fluoride) targeting school children and was in it's final stages before going public, next came an announcement from the PHE putting the scheme on hold, A study from Newcastle University showed elevated levels of fluoride in the children who drank dental milk, the PHE are now investigating that study. The story first appeared in the Blackpool Gazette and was taken down within a day of release. No other paper ran the story, perhaps it should of been a story of incompetence and failure by Public Health England for not doing the research. One can only wonder at the outcome of the dental milk scheme had this Newcastle study not seen the light. Ryan Cannard
  • Score: 4

9:15pm Fri 28 Feb 14

forest hump says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Good on the Echo.. I posted the below fluoride NEUROTOXIN news four days ago, an Echo staff member must've read it.



-

Just one drop more in a tidal wave of evidence against fluoridation



FLUORIDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS TO BRAINS.

NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2014.

- Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains.

FLUORIDE IS NEWLY CLASSIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXIN BY MEDICAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARCH 2014 JOURNAL LANCET NEUROLOGY. The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine.

The authors write "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations." The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter.

DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXINS ARE CAPABLE OF CAUSING WIDESPREAD BRAIN DISORDERS SUCH AS AUTISM, ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, LEARNING DISABILITIES, AND OTHER COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS. THE HARM IS OFTEN UNTREATABLE AND PERMANENT.

Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries."
The authors say it's crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children's brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity.

"Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us."

PAUL CONNETT, PHD, FAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAYS, "IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDE AS A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN, ADDING MORE FLUORIDE TO AMERICAN'S ALREADY EXCESSIVE INTAKE NO LONGER HAS ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO REDUCE FLUORIDE INTAKE, NOT INCREASE IT."

The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers.

But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposur




e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing.

Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains."



,,

http://www.dailyecho


.co.uk/yoursay/lette


rs/11008629.What___s


_wrong_with_clean__p


ure_water_/
,,

Looks like Southampton has copped a £19m air pollution fine and if that's not bad enough the South Central Strategic Health Authority wants to put a NEUROTOXIN in our drinking water.. more EU fines!!

No doubt in my mind.. members of the South Central Strategic Health Authority will be in the firing line when Southampton is (EU) fined for dumping toxic waste into our drinking water.

-

UK FACES £300M FINE OVER FAILURE TO MEET AIR POLLUTION TARGETS BY 2010.

IAN JOHNSTON Thursday 20 February 2014.

poor air quality is the number one environmental cause of premature death in the EU with a toll that outstrips road traffic accidents.

"It is an invisible killer and it prevents many people from living a fully active life. It already costs Europe €330bn-€940bn (£277bn-£789bn) a year in extra health costs and prematurely killed over 100,000 people a year," he said last year.

CITY-DWELLERS ARE PARTICULARLY EXPOSED, AS MOST NITROGEN DIOXIDE ORIGINATES IN TRAFFIC FUMES … AIR POLLUTION LIMITS ARE REGULARLY EXCEEDED IN 16 ZONES ACROSS THE UK.

The affected areas are Greater London, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Teesside, the Potteries, Hull, SOUTHAMPTON, Glasgow, the east, the south-east, the east Midlands, Merseyside, Yorkshire & Humberside, the west Midlands, and the north-east. But the commission said that Britain had not presented any "credible and workable plan" for meeting air quality standards by 2015

-
http://www.theguardi

an.com/environment/2

014/feb/20/air-pollu

tion-european-commis

sion-legal-action-uk

-nitrogen-dioxide




,,,
Why don't you move to the Moon sunshine? Not much going on there to scare you.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Good on the Echo.. I posted the below fluoride NEUROTOXIN news four days ago, an Echo staff member must've read it. - Just one drop more in a tidal wave of evidence against fluoridation FLUORIDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS TO BRAINS. NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2014. - Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains. FLUORIDE IS NEWLY CLASSIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXIN BY MEDICAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARCH 2014 JOURNAL LANCET NEUROLOGY. The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine. The authors write "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations." The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter. DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXINS ARE CAPABLE OF CAUSING WIDESPREAD BRAIN DISORDERS SUCH AS AUTISM, ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, LEARNING DISABILITIES, AND OTHER COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS. THE HARM IS OFTEN UNTREATABLE AND PERMANENT. Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries." The authors say it's crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children's brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity. "Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us." PAUL CONNETT, PHD, FAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAYS, "IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDE AS A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN, ADDING MORE FLUORIDE TO AMERICAN'S ALREADY EXCESSIVE INTAKE NO LONGER HAS ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO REDUCE FLUORIDE INTAKE, NOT INCREASE IT." The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers. But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposur e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing. Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains." ,, http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/yoursay/lette rs/11008629.What___s _wrong_with_clean__p ure_water_/[/p][/quote],, Looks like Southampton has copped a £19m air pollution fine and if that's not bad enough the South Central Strategic Health Authority wants to put a NEUROTOXIN in our drinking water.. more EU fines!! No doubt in my mind.. members of the South Central Strategic Health Authority will be in the firing line when Southampton is (EU) fined for dumping toxic waste into our drinking water. - UK FACES £300M FINE OVER FAILURE TO MEET AIR POLLUTION TARGETS BY 2010. IAN JOHNSTON Thursday 20 February 2014. poor air quality is the number one environmental cause of premature death in the EU with a toll that outstrips road traffic accidents. "It is an invisible killer and it prevents many people from living a fully active life. It already costs Europe €330bn-€940bn (£277bn-£789bn) a year in extra health costs and prematurely killed over 100,000 people a year," he said last year. CITY-DWELLERS ARE PARTICULARLY EXPOSED, AS MOST NITROGEN DIOXIDE ORIGINATES IN TRAFFIC FUMES … AIR POLLUTION LIMITS ARE REGULARLY EXCEEDED IN 16 ZONES ACROSS THE UK. The affected areas are Greater London, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Teesside, the Potteries, Hull, SOUTHAMPTON, Glasgow, the east, the south-east, the east Midlands, Merseyside, Yorkshire & Humberside, the west Midlands, and the north-east. But the commission said that Britain had not presented any "credible and workable plan" for meeting air quality standards by 2015 - http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/2 014/feb/20/air-pollu tion-european-commis sion-legal-action-uk -nitrogen-dioxide ,,,[/p][/quote]Why don't you move to the Moon sunshine? Not much going on there to scare you. forest hump
  • Score: -7

9:38pm Fri 28 Feb 14

BeyondImagination says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
charrlee wrote:
It's got a lot to do with choice. Any "mass" process deprives the individual of their right to freedom of choice. Bottled water to drink is no solution - buying it and storing it would be such an arduous task each week/month.
By that logic, I'd rather my tap water came straight from the river - it's more 'natural' that way. But no, the pesky water company insist on cleaning it up and purifying it before it gets here. Those mass processes eh? They've deprived me of my freedom of choice.
No. You can get your water from the river, puddles or the gutter if you choose. If you want it from the public supply straight to your tap you enjoy the benefit of it being purified.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: It's got a lot to do with choice. Any "mass" process deprives the individual of their right to freedom of choice. Bottled water to drink is no solution - buying it and storing it would be such an arduous task each week/month.[/p][/quote]By that logic, I'd rather my tap water came straight from the river - it's more 'natural' that way. But no, the pesky water company insist on cleaning it up and purifying it before it gets here. Those mass processes eh? They've deprived me of my freedom of choice.[/p][/quote]No. You can get your water from the river, puddles or the gutter if you choose. If you want it from the public supply straight to your tap you enjoy the benefit of it being purified. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 1

10:06pm Fri 28 Feb 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

BeyondImagination wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
charrlee wrote:
It's got a lot to do with choice. Any "mass" process deprives the individual of their right to freedom of choice. Bottled water to drink is no solution - buying it and storing it would be such an arduous task each week/month.
By that logic, I'd rather my tap water came straight from the river - it's more 'natural' that way. But no, the pesky water company insist on cleaning it up and purifying it before it gets here. Those mass processes eh? They've deprived me of my freedom of choice.
No. You can get your water from the river, puddles or the gutter if you choose. If you want it from the public supply straight to your tap you enjoy the benefit of it being purified.
Oh dear....why don't you read my post again, and see if you can understand it this time?
[quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: It's got a lot to do with choice. Any "mass" process deprives the individual of their right to freedom of choice. Bottled water to drink is no solution - buying it and storing it would be such an arduous task each week/month.[/p][/quote]By that logic, I'd rather my tap water came straight from the river - it's more 'natural' that way. But no, the pesky water company insist on cleaning it up and purifying it before it gets here. Those mass processes eh? They've deprived me of my freedom of choice.[/p][/quote]No. You can get your water from the river, puddles or the gutter if you choose. If you want it from the public supply straight to your tap you enjoy the benefit of it being purified.[/p][/quote]Oh dear....why don't you read my post again, and see if you can understand it this time? WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 0

10:08pm Fri 28 Feb 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

SotonGreen wrote:
Also all flour derived from wheat except whole meal flour must be enriched by law with calcium carbonate, iron and thiamin (vitamin B1). This also mass medication and iron is toxic in animal and human studies at sufficient dosages.

Where is the campaign against flour when we need them ?
Stop being so logical SotonGreen. It upsets many of the other posters, and you get a big thumbs down.
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Also all flour derived from wheat except whole meal flour must be enriched by law with calcium carbonate, iron and thiamin (vitamin B1). This also mass medication and iron is toxic in animal and human studies at sufficient dosages. Where is the campaign against flour when we need them ?[/p][/quote]Stop being so logical SotonGreen. It upsets many of the other posters, and you get a big thumbs down. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: -2

11:30pm Fri 28 Feb 14

charrlee says...

If we "allow" this fluoridation scheme ( or MBTCP - mass brushless teeth cleaning programme ) to go ahead, thus depriving us of our freedom of choice, we may find those "them" emptying half the shelves in supermarkets in the fight against obesity, thus further depriving us of our freedom of choice!

I suppose we'd accept a compromise where food carried enormous health warning labels, like cigarettes : CHIPS CAN KILL, and BURGERS MAKE YOU VERY FAT, and SO DO GREASY DONUTS !

If the government uses a mass reverse psychology approach, we could find hearses carrying promotional ad wraps : "Eat burgers and choccy cake? Phone 02380 111 222 333 for an early appointment !" Crematoriums (crematoria, is it, Spelling Police?).....anyway - crematoriums might start brightening up with fairy lights and neon signs, and re-branding themselves as "Deep Fry", or "Crem de la Crem".

The mass cycling programme is already successfully tormenting the lazy, unhealthy motorist in most cities, both directly on the roads, and indirectly through the propaganda delivered by Gingercyclist Inc.

Of course, with the change in our weather system, we could build reservoirs in our back gardens, and on the roofs of tower blocks, get our water for free again, minus fluoride, and at the same time solve the problem of mass flooding. (Mass flooding, of course, is a government run scheme designed to boost the property development market).

We should be wary.
If we "allow" this fluoridation scheme ( or MBTCP - mass brushless teeth cleaning programme ) to go ahead, thus depriving us of our freedom of choice, we may find those "them" emptying half the shelves in supermarkets in the fight against obesity, thus further depriving us of our freedom of choice! I suppose we'd accept a compromise where food carried enormous health warning labels, like cigarettes : CHIPS CAN KILL, and BURGERS MAKE YOU VERY FAT, and SO DO GREASY DONUTS ! If the government uses a mass reverse psychology approach, we could find hearses carrying promotional ad wraps : "Eat burgers and choccy cake? Phone 02380 111 222 333 for an early appointment !" Crematoriums (crematoria, is it, Spelling Police?).....anyway - crematoriums might start brightening up with fairy lights and neon signs, and re-branding themselves as "Deep Fry", or "Crem de la Crem". The mass cycling programme is already successfully tormenting the lazy, unhealthy motorist in most cities, both directly on the roads, and indirectly through the propaganda delivered by Gingercyclist Inc. Of course, with the change in our weather system, we could build reservoirs in our back gardens, and on the roofs of tower blocks, get our water for free again, minus fluoride, and at the same time solve the problem of mass flooding. (Mass flooding, of course, is a government run scheme designed to boost the property development market). We should be wary. charrlee
  • Score: -2

11:54pm Fri 28 Feb 14

CactusPan says...

there seems to be a lot of ignorance about fluoride and how it can benefit us and also, how it can harm us. the argument for putting it in our drinking water is that its good for our teeth. this is wrong, its only helps the teeth with direct application (toothpaste or fluoride varnish) there is no evidence to show that it helps teeth by drinking it. the only evidence to support its use in drinking water is a increase in oral health over a time period from when it was introduced. but this doesn't take into account all the other factors like better dentistry practices or oral health education. however, there is clear evidence of calcification of the pineal gland when constantly ingested through drinking water.

anyone who thinks fluoride in water is good, do a little research first, find out why Hitler used it during the war, find out where it comes from and whos selling it and why.
there seems to be a lot of ignorance about fluoride and how it can benefit us and also, how it can harm us. the argument for putting it in our drinking water is that its good for our teeth. this is wrong, its only helps the teeth with direct application (toothpaste or fluoride varnish) there is no evidence to show that it helps teeth by drinking it. the only evidence to support its use in drinking water is a increase in oral health over a time period from when it was introduced. but this doesn't take into account all the other factors like better dentistry practices or oral health education. however, there is clear evidence of calcification of the pineal gland when constantly ingested through drinking water. anyone who thinks fluoride in water is good, do a little research first, find out why Hitler used it during the war, find out where it comes from and whos selling it and why. CactusPan
  • Score: 4

11:59pm Fri 28 Feb 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

CactusPan wrote:
there seems to be a lot of ignorance about fluoride and how it can benefit us and also, how it can harm us. the argument for putting it in our drinking water is that its good for our teeth. this is wrong, its only helps the teeth with direct application (toothpaste or fluoride varnish) there is no evidence to show that it helps teeth by drinking it. the only evidence to support its use in drinking water is a increase in oral health over a time period from when it was introduced. but this doesn't take into account all the other factors like better dentistry practices or oral health education. however, there is clear evidence of calcification of the pineal gland when constantly ingested through drinking water.

anyone who thinks fluoride in water is good, do a little research first, find out why Hitler used it during the war, find out where it comes from and whos selling it and why.
Pretty much all of that is absolute rubbish. This debate is littered with scaremongering and misinformation.
[quote][p][bold]CactusPan[/bold] wrote: there seems to be a lot of ignorance about fluoride and how it can benefit us and also, how it can harm us. the argument for putting it in our drinking water is that its good for our teeth. this is wrong, its only helps the teeth with direct application (toothpaste or fluoride varnish) there is no evidence to show that it helps teeth by drinking it. the only evidence to support its use in drinking water is a increase in oral health over a time period from when it was introduced. but this doesn't take into account all the other factors like better dentistry practices or oral health education. however, there is clear evidence of calcification of the pineal gland when constantly ingested through drinking water. anyone who thinks fluoride in water is good, do a little research first, find out why Hitler used it during the war, find out where it comes from and whos selling it and why.[/p][/quote]Pretty much all of that is absolute rubbish. This debate is littered with scaremongering and misinformation. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: -5

12:24am Sat 1 Mar 14

charrlee says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
CactusPan wrote:
there seems to be a lot of ignorance about fluoride and how it can benefit us and also, how it can harm us. the argument for putting it in our drinking water is that its good for our teeth. this is wrong, its only helps the teeth with direct application (toothpaste or fluoride varnish) there is no evidence to show that it helps teeth by drinking it. the only evidence to support its use in drinking water is a increase in oral health over a time period from when it was introduced. but this doesn't take into account all the other factors like better dentistry practices or oral health education. however, there is clear evidence of calcification of the pineal gland when constantly ingested through drinking water.

anyone who thinks fluoride in water is good, do a little research first, find out why Hitler used it during the war, find out where it comes from and whos selling it and why.
Pretty much all of that is absolute rubbish. This debate is littered with scaremongering and misinformation.
My own contribution was pure mockery, of course, but Cactus has brought together some facts that have been widely-known for a very long time.

On what basis do you label it "absolute rubbish"? Without some defence of your assertion, your comment might well fall into one of your listed categories : misinformation.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CactusPan[/bold] wrote: there seems to be a lot of ignorance about fluoride and how it can benefit us and also, how it can harm us. the argument for putting it in our drinking water is that its good for our teeth. this is wrong, its only helps the teeth with direct application (toothpaste or fluoride varnish) there is no evidence to show that it helps teeth by drinking it. the only evidence to support its use in drinking water is a increase in oral health over a time period from when it was introduced. but this doesn't take into account all the other factors like better dentistry practices or oral health education. however, there is clear evidence of calcification of the pineal gland when constantly ingested through drinking water. anyone who thinks fluoride in water is good, do a little research first, find out why Hitler used it during the war, find out where it comes from and whos selling it and why.[/p][/quote]Pretty much all of that is absolute rubbish. This debate is littered with scaremongering and misinformation.[/p][/quote]My own contribution was pure mockery, of course, but Cactus has brought together some facts that have been widely-known for a very long time. On what basis do you label it "absolute rubbish"? Without some defence of your assertion, your comment might well fall into one of your listed categories : misinformation. charrlee
  • Score: 3

12:32am Sat 1 Mar 14

BeyondImagination says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
CactusPan wrote:
there seems to be a lot of ignorance about fluoride and how it can benefit us and also, how it can harm us. the argument for putting it in our drinking water is that its good for our teeth. this is wrong, its only helps the teeth with direct application (toothpaste or fluoride varnish) there is no evidence to show that it helps teeth by drinking it. the only evidence to support its use in drinking water is a increase in oral health over a time period from when it was introduced. but this doesn't take into account all the other factors like better dentistry practices or oral health education. however, there is clear evidence of calcification of the pineal gland when constantly ingested through drinking water.

anyone who thinks fluoride in water is good, do a little research first, find out why Hitler used it during the war, find out where it comes from and whos selling it and why.
Pretty much all of that is absolute rubbish. This debate is littered with scaremongering and misinformation.
Where is the evidence supporting fluoride? I have more confidence in the evidence presented by Professor Paul Connett and Professor Stephen Peckham than the SHA and the fluoride industry who are desperate to find markets for their toxic (Having a chemical nature that is harmful to health or lethal if consumed or otherwise entering into the body in sufficient quantities) industrial waste.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CactusPan[/bold] wrote: there seems to be a lot of ignorance about fluoride and how it can benefit us and also, how it can harm us. the argument for putting it in our drinking water is that its good for our teeth. this is wrong, its only helps the teeth with direct application (toothpaste or fluoride varnish) there is no evidence to show that it helps teeth by drinking it. the only evidence to support its use in drinking water is a increase in oral health over a time period from when it was introduced. but this doesn't take into account all the other factors like better dentistry practices or oral health education. however, there is clear evidence of calcification of the pineal gland when constantly ingested through drinking water. anyone who thinks fluoride in water is good, do a little research first, find out why Hitler used it during the war, find out where it comes from and whos selling it and why.[/p][/quote]Pretty much all of that is absolute rubbish. This debate is littered with scaremongering and misinformation.[/p][/quote]Where is the evidence supporting fluoride? I have more confidence in the evidence presented by Professor Paul Connett and Professor Stephen Peckham than the SHA and the fluoride industry who are desperate to find markets for their toxic (Having a chemical nature that is harmful to health or lethal if consumed or otherwise entering into the body in sufficient quantities) industrial waste. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 8

12:34am Sat 1 Mar 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

charrlee wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
CactusPan wrote:
there seems to be a lot of ignorance about fluoride and how it can benefit us and also, how it can harm us. the argument for putting it in our drinking water is that its good for our teeth. this is wrong, its only helps the teeth with direct application (toothpaste or fluoride varnish) there is no evidence to show that it helps teeth by drinking it. the only evidence to support its use in drinking water is a increase in oral health over a time period from when it was introduced. but this doesn't take into account all the other factors like better dentistry practices or oral health education. however, there is clear evidence of calcification of the pineal gland when constantly ingested through drinking water.

anyone who thinks fluoride in water is good, do a little research first, find out why Hitler used it during the war, find out where it comes from and whos selling it and why.
Pretty much all of that is absolute rubbish. This debate is littered with scaremongering and misinformation.
My own contribution was pure mockery, of course, but Cactus has brought together some facts that have been widely-known for a very long time.

On what basis do you label it "absolute rubbish"? Without some defence of your assertion, your comment might well fall into one of your listed categories : misinformation.
I understand your own contribution charrlee, they generally light up these threads.
Let's just take the word 'toxin' and 'poison' that gets bandied about a lot. Everything is a poison, taken in a large enough dose. People die from drinking too much water - but a certain amount of water, within a sensible range, is clearly important to health. It doesn't mean that it can't be a toxin. The same is true of all trace minerals, for example - things we absolutely have to have like zinc and iron. But you can easily die from too much of these things, so they can of course be considered 'poison'. It is all about the absolute amount. The amount of fluoride which is being proposed to be added to our water is far, far lower than in many naturally occurring sources of water all around the world. The people who ingest those waters do not ail and sicken because the of the slightly raised fluoride content. And the idea that 'Hitler' should be invoked, or that there is some kind of sinister conspiracy involved, is fantasy.
The reason I support fluroridation is because it specifically benefits the poorest part of the population, where children may well not be getting the diligent care and training they need to keep their teeth clean. Yes there is parental responsibility, but the children themselves can't be held responsible for their own protection and it is them specifically I am concerned about. I accept that others hold different, legitimate views about this. What really annoys me is the hijacking of the debate by cranks who want to scare everyone into thinking fluoride is the devil's work. It is not.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CactusPan[/bold] wrote: there seems to be a lot of ignorance about fluoride and how it can benefit us and also, how it can harm us. the argument for putting it in our drinking water is that its good for our teeth. this is wrong, its only helps the teeth with direct application (toothpaste or fluoride varnish) there is no evidence to show that it helps teeth by drinking it. the only evidence to support its use in drinking water is a increase in oral health over a time period from when it was introduced. but this doesn't take into account all the other factors like better dentistry practices or oral health education. however, there is clear evidence of calcification of the pineal gland when constantly ingested through drinking water. anyone who thinks fluoride in water is good, do a little research first, find out why Hitler used it during the war, find out where it comes from and whos selling it and why.[/p][/quote]Pretty much all of that is absolute rubbish. This debate is littered with scaremongering and misinformation.[/p][/quote]My own contribution was pure mockery, of course, but Cactus has brought together some facts that have been widely-known for a very long time. On what basis do you label it "absolute rubbish"? Without some defence of your assertion, your comment might well fall into one of your listed categories : misinformation.[/p][/quote]I understand your own contribution charrlee, they generally light up these threads. Let's just take the word 'toxin' and 'poison' that gets bandied about a lot. Everything is a poison, taken in a large enough dose. People die from drinking too much water - but a certain amount of water, within a sensible range, is clearly important to health. It doesn't mean that it can't be a toxin. The same is true of all trace minerals, for example - things we absolutely have to have like zinc and iron. But you can easily die from too much of these things, so they can of course be considered 'poison'. It is all about the absolute amount. The amount of fluoride which is being proposed to be added to our water is far, far lower than in many naturally occurring sources of water all around the world. The people who ingest those waters do not ail and sicken because the of the slightly raised fluoride content. And the idea that 'Hitler' should be invoked, or that there is some kind of sinister conspiracy involved, is fantasy. The reason I support fluroridation is because it specifically benefits the poorest part of the population, where children may well not be getting the diligent care and training they need to keep their teeth clean. Yes there is parental responsibility, but the children themselves can't be held responsible for their own protection and it is them specifically I am concerned about. I accept that others hold different, legitimate views about this. What really annoys me is the hijacking of the debate by cranks who want to scare everyone into thinking fluoride is the devil's work. It is not. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: -1

2:21am Sat 1 Mar 14

charrlee says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
charrlee wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
CactusPan wrote:
there seems to be a lot of ignorance about fluoride and how it can benefit us and also, how it can harm us. the argument for putting it in our drinking water is that its good for our teeth. this is wrong, its only helps the teeth with direct application (toothpaste or fluoride varnish) there is no evidence to show that it helps teeth by drinking it. the only evidence to support its use in drinking water is a increase in oral health over a time period from when it was introduced. but this doesn't take into account all the other factors like better dentistry practices or oral health education. however, there is clear evidence of calcification of the pineal gland when constantly ingested through drinking water.

anyone who thinks fluoride in water is good, do a little research first, find out why Hitler used it during the war, find out where it comes from and whos selling it and why.
Pretty much all of that is absolute rubbish. This debate is littered with scaremongering and misinformation.
My own contribution was pure mockery, of course, but Cactus has brought together some facts that have been widely-known for a very long time.

On what basis do you label it "absolute rubbish"? Without some defence of your assertion, your comment might well fall into one of your listed categories : misinformation.
I understand your own contribution charrlee, they generally light up these threads.
Let's just take the word 'toxin' and 'poison' that gets bandied about a lot. Everything is a poison, taken in a large enough dose. People die from drinking too much water - but a certain amount of water, within a sensible range, is clearly important to health. It doesn't mean that it can't be a toxin. The same is true of all trace minerals, for example - things we absolutely have to have like zinc and iron. But you can easily die from too much of these things, so they can of course be considered 'poison'. It is all about the absolute amount. The amount of fluoride which is being proposed to be added to our water is far, far lower than in many naturally occurring sources of water all around the world. The people who ingest those waters do not ail and sicken because the of the slightly raised fluoride content. And the idea that 'Hitler' should be invoked, or that there is some kind of sinister conspiracy involved, is fantasy.
The reason I support fluroridation is because it specifically benefits the poorest part of the population, where children may well not be getting the diligent care and training they need to keep their teeth clean. Yes there is parental responsibility, but the children themselves can't be held responsible for their own protection and it is them specifically I am concerned about. I accept that others hold different, legitimate views about this. What really annoys me is the hijacking of the debate by cranks who want to scare everyone into thinking fluoride is the devil's work. It is not.
Thanks for taking the trouble to explain, WOAW. It's a pity this couldn't have appeared somewhere near the top of the thread.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CactusPan[/bold] wrote: there seems to be a lot of ignorance about fluoride and how it can benefit us and also, how it can harm us. the argument for putting it in our drinking water is that its good for our teeth. this is wrong, its only helps the teeth with direct application (toothpaste or fluoride varnish) there is no evidence to show that it helps teeth by drinking it. the only evidence to support its use in drinking water is a increase in oral health over a time period from when it was introduced. but this doesn't take into account all the other factors like better dentistry practices or oral health education. however, there is clear evidence of calcification of the pineal gland when constantly ingested through drinking water. anyone who thinks fluoride in water is good, do a little research first, find out why Hitler used it during the war, find out where it comes from and whos selling it and why.[/p][/quote]Pretty much all of that is absolute rubbish. This debate is littered with scaremongering and misinformation.[/p][/quote]My own contribution was pure mockery, of course, but Cactus has brought together some facts that have been widely-known for a very long time. On what basis do you label it "absolute rubbish"? Without some defence of your assertion, your comment might well fall into one of your listed categories : misinformation.[/p][/quote]I understand your own contribution charrlee, they generally light up these threads. Let's just take the word 'toxin' and 'poison' that gets bandied about a lot. Everything is a poison, taken in a large enough dose. People die from drinking too much water - but a certain amount of water, within a sensible range, is clearly important to health. It doesn't mean that it can't be a toxin. The same is true of all trace minerals, for example - things we absolutely have to have like zinc and iron. But you can easily die from too much of these things, so they can of course be considered 'poison'. It is all about the absolute amount. The amount of fluoride which is being proposed to be added to our water is far, far lower than in many naturally occurring sources of water all around the world. The people who ingest those waters do not ail and sicken because the of the slightly raised fluoride content. And the idea that 'Hitler' should be invoked, or that there is some kind of sinister conspiracy involved, is fantasy. The reason I support fluroridation is because it specifically benefits the poorest part of the population, where children may well not be getting the diligent care and training they need to keep their teeth clean. Yes there is parental responsibility, but the children themselves can't be held responsible for their own protection and it is them specifically I am concerned about. I accept that others hold different, legitimate views about this. What really annoys me is the hijacking of the debate by cranks who want to scare everyone into thinking fluoride is the devil's work. It is not.[/p][/quote]Thanks for taking the trouble to explain, WOAW. It's a pity this couldn't have appeared somewhere near the top of the thread. charrlee
  • Score: 0

7:59am Sat 1 Mar 14

mickey01 says...

they said the same about mobiles and have been proved wrong
they said the same about mobiles and have been proved wrong mickey01
  • Score: -3

8:08am Sat 1 Mar 14

FoysCornerBoy says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
charrlee wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
CactusPan wrote:
there seems to be a lot of ignorance about fluoride and how it can benefit us and also, how it can harm us. the argument for putting it in our drinking water is that its good for our teeth. this is wrong, its only helps the teeth with direct application (toothpaste or fluoride varnish) there is no evidence to show that it helps teeth by drinking it. the only evidence to support its use in drinking water is a increase in oral health over a time period from when it was introduced. but this doesn't take into account all the other factors like better dentistry practices or oral health education. however, there is clear evidence of calcification of the pineal gland when constantly ingested through drinking water.

anyone who thinks fluoride in water is good, do a little research first, find out why Hitler used it during the war, find out where it comes from and whos selling it and why.
Pretty much all of that is absolute rubbish. This debate is littered with scaremongering and misinformation.
My own contribution was pure mockery, of course, but Cactus has brought together some facts that have been widely-known for a very long time.

On what basis do you label it "absolute rubbish"? Without some defence of your assertion, your comment might well fall into one of your listed categories : misinformation.
I understand your own contribution charrlee, they generally light up these threads.
Let's just take the word 'toxin' and 'poison' that gets bandied about a lot. Everything is a poison, taken in a large enough dose. People die from drinking too much water - but a certain amount of water, within a sensible range, is clearly important to health. It doesn't mean that it can't be a toxin. The same is true of all trace minerals, for example - things we absolutely have to have like zinc and iron. But you can easily die from too much of these things, so they can of course be considered 'poison'. It is all about the absolute amount. The amount of fluoride which is being proposed to be added to our water is far, far lower than in many naturally occurring sources of water all around the world. The people who ingest those waters do not ail and sicken because the of the slightly raised fluoride content. And the idea that 'Hitler' should be invoked, or that there is some kind of sinister conspiracy involved, is fantasy.
The reason I support fluroridation is because it specifically benefits the poorest part of the population, where children may well not be getting the diligent care and training they need to keep their teeth clean. Yes there is parental responsibility, but the children themselves can't be held responsible for their own protection and it is them specifically I am concerned about. I accept that others hold different, legitimate views about this. What really annoys me is the hijacking of the debate by cranks who want to scare everyone into thinking fluoride is the devil's work. It is not.
Good points. Well made.

I understand that the Echo does not take a formal view for or against fluoride and states that a final decision should be informed by a local referendum. Unfortunately the Echo's coverage of this important issue disproportionately presents arguments from the anti lobby. Over the last few years about 95% of all Echo 'reporting' and comment has favoured this lobby.

I like the idea of a referendum but I fear that those public authorities who will be expected to pay for this and act in an impartial manner will be put off by the bias being shown in local media outlets like the Echo.

Please let's have the public debate but make sure that all sides are given a fair hearing.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CactusPan[/bold] wrote: there seems to be a lot of ignorance about fluoride and how it can benefit us and also, how it can harm us. the argument for putting it in our drinking water is that its good for our teeth. this is wrong, its only helps the teeth with direct application (toothpaste or fluoride varnish) there is no evidence to show that it helps teeth by drinking it. the only evidence to support its use in drinking water is a increase in oral health over a time period from when it was introduced. but this doesn't take into account all the other factors like better dentistry practices or oral health education. however, there is clear evidence of calcification of the pineal gland when constantly ingested through drinking water. anyone who thinks fluoride in water is good, do a little research first, find out why Hitler used it during the war, find out where it comes from and whos selling it and why.[/p][/quote]Pretty much all of that is absolute rubbish. This debate is littered with scaremongering and misinformation.[/p][/quote]My own contribution was pure mockery, of course, but Cactus has brought together some facts that have been widely-known for a very long time. On what basis do you label it "absolute rubbish"? Without some defence of your assertion, your comment might well fall into one of your listed categories : misinformation.[/p][/quote]I understand your own contribution charrlee, they generally light up these threads. Let's just take the word 'toxin' and 'poison' that gets bandied about a lot. Everything is a poison, taken in a large enough dose. People die from drinking too much water - but a certain amount of water, within a sensible range, is clearly important to health. It doesn't mean that it can't be a toxin. The same is true of all trace minerals, for example - things we absolutely have to have like zinc and iron. But you can easily die from too much of these things, so they can of course be considered 'poison'. It is all about the absolute amount. The amount of fluoride which is being proposed to be added to our water is far, far lower than in many naturally occurring sources of water all around the world. The people who ingest those waters do not ail and sicken because the of the slightly raised fluoride content. And the idea that 'Hitler' should be invoked, or that there is some kind of sinister conspiracy involved, is fantasy. The reason I support fluroridation is because it specifically benefits the poorest part of the population, where children may well not be getting the diligent care and training they need to keep their teeth clean. Yes there is parental responsibility, but the children themselves can't be held responsible for their own protection and it is them specifically I am concerned about. I accept that others hold different, legitimate views about this. What really annoys me is the hijacking of the debate by cranks who want to scare everyone into thinking fluoride is the devil's work. It is not.[/p][/quote]Good points. Well made. I understand that the Echo does not take a formal view for or against fluoride and states that a final decision should be informed by a local referendum. Unfortunately the Echo's coverage of this important issue disproportionately presents arguments from the anti lobby. Over the last few years about 95% of all Echo 'reporting' and comment has favoured this lobby. I like the idea of a referendum but I fear that those public authorities who will be expected to pay for this and act in an impartial manner will be put off by the bias being shown in local media outlets like the Echo. Please let's have the public debate but make sure that all sides are given a fair hearing. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: -1

11:24am Sat 1 Mar 14

charrlee says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
charrlee wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
CactusPan wrote:
there seems to be a lot of ignorance about fluoride and how it can benefit us and also, how it can harm us. the argument for putting it in our drinking water is that its good for our teeth. this is wrong, its only helps the teeth with direct application (toothpaste or fluoride varnish) there is no evidence to show that it helps teeth by drinking it. the only evidence to support its use in drinking water is a increase in oral health over a time period from when it was introduced. but this doesn't take into account all the other factors like better dentistry practices or oral health education. however, there is clear evidence of calcification of the pineal gland when constantly ingested through drinking water.

anyone who thinks fluoride in water is good, do a little research first, find out why Hitler used it during the war, find out where it comes from and whos selling it and why.
Pretty much all of that is absolute rubbish. This debate is littered with scaremongering and misinformation.
My own contribution was pure mockery, of course, but Cactus has brought together some facts that have been widely-known for a very long time.

On what basis do you label it "absolute rubbish"? Without some defence of your assertion, your comment might well fall into one of your listed categories : misinformation.
I understand your own contribution charrlee, they generally light up these threads.
Let's just take the word 'toxin' and 'poison' that gets bandied about a lot. Everything is a poison, taken in a large enough dose. People die from drinking too much water - but a certain amount of water, within a sensible range, is clearly important to health. It doesn't mean that it can't be a toxin. The same is true of all trace minerals, for example - things we absolutely have to have like zinc and iron. But you can easily die from too much of these things, so they can of course be considered 'poison'. It is all about the absolute amount. The amount of fluoride which is being proposed to be added to our water is far, far lower than in many naturally occurring sources of water all around the world. The people who ingest those waters do not ail and sicken because the of the slightly raised fluoride content. And the idea that 'Hitler' should be invoked, or that there is some kind of sinister conspiracy involved, is fantasy.
The reason I support fluroridation is because it specifically benefits the poorest part of the population, where children may well not be getting the diligent care and training they need to keep their teeth clean. Yes there is parental responsibility, but the children themselves can't be held responsible for their own protection and it is them specifically I am concerned about. I accept that others hold different, legitimate views about this. What really annoys me is the hijacking of the debate by cranks who want to scare everyone into thinking fluoride is the devil's work. It is not.
Good points. Well made.

I understand that the Echo does not take a formal view for or against fluoride and states that a final decision should be informed by a local referendum. Unfortunately the Echo's coverage of this important issue disproportionately presents arguments from the anti lobby. Over the last few years about 95% of all Echo 'reporting' and comment has favoured this lobby.

I like the idea of a referendum but I fear that those public authorities who will be expected to pay for this and act in an impartial manner will be put off by the bias being shown in local media outlets like the Echo.

Please let's have the public debate but make sure that all sides are given a fair hearing.
Just taking a look from a different perspective.........
I seem to remember people were quite happy to be surrounded by asbestos for decades - the dockers threw sacks of it around as they unloaded it from the ships back in the 60's and before. When they discovered more about the pneumoconiosis group of lung diseases, its particularly slow onset and development, suddenly you could only handle asbestos dressed in a space suit.

After decades of cutting polystyrene with a hot wire in school art rooms up and down the country, it turned out the blue smoke had "carcinogenic properties", and the hot wires were banned. The dust from clay and glazes in pottery rooms, and the overspray from airbrushes came under scrutiny, and extractor fans had to be installed. Remember the "x-ray" machines in shoe shops? The "E" contents of foods? CJD? Betnovate, and the problems regarding longterm use of steroid creams?

There is a long list of things we thought were all right for ages, and then discovered were not. Mickey01's comment about mobiles reminded me of that old joke about people being able to fly : in an effort to prove that he could fly, a guy jumped off the top of an 80-storey building, and as he plummeted towards the ground, each floor he passed he was heard shouting,"So far, so good!"
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CactusPan[/bold] wrote: there seems to be a lot of ignorance about fluoride and how it can benefit us and also, how it can harm us. the argument for putting it in our drinking water is that its good for our teeth. this is wrong, its only helps the teeth with direct application (toothpaste or fluoride varnish) there is no evidence to show that it helps teeth by drinking it. the only evidence to support its use in drinking water is a increase in oral health over a time period from when it was introduced. but this doesn't take into account all the other factors like better dentistry practices or oral health education. however, there is clear evidence of calcification of the pineal gland when constantly ingested through drinking water. anyone who thinks fluoride in water is good, do a little research first, find out why Hitler used it during the war, find out where it comes from and whos selling it and why.[/p][/quote]Pretty much all of that is absolute rubbish. This debate is littered with scaremongering and misinformation.[/p][/quote]My own contribution was pure mockery, of course, but Cactus has brought together some facts that have been widely-known for a very long time. On what basis do you label it "absolute rubbish"? Without some defence of your assertion, your comment might well fall into one of your listed categories : misinformation.[/p][/quote]I understand your own contribution charrlee, they generally light up these threads. Let's just take the word 'toxin' and 'poison' that gets bandied about a lot. Everything is a poison, taken in a large enough dose. People die from drinking too much water - but a certain amount of water, within a sensible range, is clearly important to health. It doesn't mean that it can't be a toxin. The same is true of all trace minerals, for example - things we absolutely have to have like zinc and iron. But you can easily die from too much of these things, so they can of course be considered 'poison'. It is all about the absolute amount. The amount of fluoride which is being proposed to be added to our water is far, far lower than in many naturally occurring sources of water all around the world. The people who ingest those waters do not ail and sicken because the of the slightly raised fluoride content. And the idea that 'Hitler' should be invoked, or that there is some kind of sinister conspiracy involved, is fantasy. The reason I support fluroridation is because it specifically benefits the poorest part of the population, where children may well not be getting the diligent care and training they need to keep their teeth clean. Yes there is parental responsibility, but the children themselves can't be held responsible for their own protection and it is them specifically I am concerned about. I accept that others hold different, legitimate views about this. What really annoys me is the hijacking of the debate by cranks who want to scare everyone into thinking fluoride is the devil's work. It is not.[/p][/quote]Good points. Well made. I understand that the Echo does not take a formal view for or against fluoride and states that a final decision should be informed by a local referendum. Unfortunately the Echo's coverage of this important issue disproportionately presents arguments from the anti lobby. Over the last few years about 95% of all Echo 'reporting' and comment has favoured this lobby. I like the idea of a referendum but I fear that those public authorities who will be expected to pay for this and act in an impartial manner will be put off by the bias being shown in local media outlets like the Echo. Please let's have the public debate but make sure that all sides are given a fair hearing.[/p][/quote]Just taking a look from a different perspective......... I seem to remember people were quite happy to be surrounded by asbestos for decades - the dockers threw sacks of it around as they unloaded it from the ships back in the 60's and before. When they discovered more about the pneumoconiosis group of lung diseases, its particularly slow onset and development, suddenly you could only handle asbestos dressed in a space suit. After decades of cutting polystyrene with a hot wire in school art rooms up and down the country, it turned out the blue smoke had "carcinogenic properties", and the hot wires were banned. The dust from clay and glazes in pottery rooms, and the overspray from airbrushes came under scrutiny, and extractor fans had to be installed. Remember the "x-ray" machines in shoe shops? The "E" contents of foods? CJD? Betnovate, and the problems regarding longterm use of steroid creams? There is a long list of things we thought were all right for ages, and then discovered were not. Mickey01's comment about mobiles reminded me of that old joke about people being able to fly : in an effort to prove that he could fly, a guy jumped off the top of an 80-storey building, and as he plummeted towards the ground, each floor he passed he was heard shouting,"So far, so good!" charrlee
  • Score: 2

12:03pm Sat 1 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

mickey01 wrote:
they said the same about mobiles and have been proved wrong
Oh, well logic dictates that "they" must be wrong about everything then.

Who is "they" anyway?
[quote][p][bold]mickey01[/bold] wrote: they said the same about mobiles and have been proved wrong[/p][/quote]Oh, well logic dictates that "they" must be wrong about everything then. Who is "they" anyway? gilbertratchet
  • Score: -1

12:06pm Sat 1 Mar 14

southy says...

There is all ready Fluoride in our drinking water all ways have been it is natural fluoride that our body,s over many generations have adapted to and the body needs.
What is going to be added to the water is not natural its a waste product that industry as to pay to dispose off in a proper manor and this cost industry a small fortune, They can make money by selling it to be added to our drinking water and let the human dispose of this chemical waste for them, but to do that they need permission and a law that allows them to be able them to do it
There is all ready Fluoride in our drinking water all ways have been it is natural fluoride that our body,s over many generations have adapted to and the body needs. What is going to be added to the water is not natural its a waste product that industry as to pay to dispose off in a proper manor and this cost industry a small fortune, They can make money by selling it to be added to our drinking water and let the human dispose of this chemical waste for them, but to do that they need permission and a law that allows them to be able them to do it southy
  • Score: 2

1:19pm Sat 1 Mar 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

southy wrote:
There is all ready Fluoride in our drinking water all ways have been it is natural fluoride that our body,s over many generations have adapted to and the body needs.
What is going to be added to the water is not natural its a waste product that industry as to pay to dispose off in a proper manor and this cost industry a small fortune, They can make money by selling it to be added to our drinking water and let the human dispose of this chemical waste for them, but to do that they need permission and a law that allows them to be able them to do it
Please quote some published sources to support that argument Southy, otherwise it's just hearsay.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: There is all ready Fluoride in our drinking water all ways have been it is natural fluoride that our body,s over many generations have adapted to and the body needs. What is going to be added to the water is not natural its a waste product that industry as to pay to dispose off in a proper manor and this cost industry a small fortune, They can make money by selling it to be added to our drinking water and let the human dispose of this chemical waste for them, but to do that they need permission and a law that allows them to be able them to do it[/p][/quote]Please quote some published sources to support that argument Southy, otherwise it's just hearsay. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: -2

1:43pm Sat 1 Mar 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

For those who have 3 minutes, this link is worth watching. It summarises the for/against arguments well, without resorting to unscientific claims.

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=z40PCA4ur
84
For those who have 3 minutes, this link is worth watching. It summarises the for/against arguments well, without resorting to unscientific claims. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=z40PCA4ur 84 WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Sat 1 Mar 14

charrlee says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
southy wrote:
There is all ready Fluoride in our drinking water all ways have been it is natural fluoride that our body,s over many generations have adapted to and the body needs.
What is going to be added to the water is not natural its a waste product that industry as to pay to dispose off in a proper manor and this cost industry a small fortune, They can make money by selling it to be added to our drinking water and let the human dispose of this chemical waste for them, but to do that they need permission and a law that allows them to be able them to do it
Please quote some published sources to support that argument Southy, otherwise it's just hearsay.
Nah! He got it off Netflix!
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: There is all ready Fluoride in our drinking water all ways have been it is natural fluoride that our body,s over many generations have adapted to and the body needs. What is going to be added to the water is not natural its a waste product that industry as to pay to dispose off in a proper manor and this cost industry a small fortune, They can make money by selling it to be added to our drinking water and let the human dispose of this chemical waste for them, but to do that they need permission and a law that allows them to be able them to do it[/p][/quote]Please quote some published sources to support that argument Southy, otherwise it's just hearsay.[/p][/quote]Nah! He got it off Netflix! charrlee
  • Score: -2

2:30pm Sat 1 Mar 14

southy says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
southy wrote:
There is all ready Fluoride in our drinking water all ways have been it is natural fluoride that our body,s over many generations have adapted to and the body needs.
What is going to be added to the water is not natural its a waste product that industry as to pay to dispose off in a proper manor and this cost industry a small fortune, They can make money by selling it to be added to our drinking water and let the human dispose of this chemical waste for them, but to do that they need permission and a law that allows them to be able them to do it
Please quote some published sources to support that argument Southy, otherwise it's just hearsay.
check with the old southern water records and the EA, natural chemical test was carried out years ago and fluoride in in the water naturally. but the fluoride they want to add to your drinking water is not a natural fluoride it is a industrial waste by-product that as strict controls on how to dispose of it, it use to be mix up in other waste set in concrete and dump out at sea, that is no longer allowed, they are not allowed to dig it into the ground, the only thing they can do at the moment is store it in containers and stack it up in a warehouse.
just out side of Sheffield there is such a warehouse that stores fluoride
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: There is all ready Fluoride in our drinking water all ways have been it is natural fluoride that our body,s over many generations have adapted to and the body needs. What is going to be added to the water is not natural its a waste product that industry as to pay to dispose off in a proper manor and this cost industry a small fortune, They can make money by selling it to be added to our drinking water and let the human dispose of this chemical waste for them, but to do that they need permission and a law that allows them to be able them to do it[/p][/quote]Please quote some published sources to support that argument Southy, otherwise it's just hearsay.[/p][/quote]check with the old southern water records and the EA, natural chemical test was carried out years ago and fluoride in in the water naturally. but the fluoride they want to add to your drinking water is not a natural fluoride it is a industrial waste by-product that as strict controls on how to dispose of it, it use to be mix up in other waste set in concrete and dump out at sea, that is no longer allowed, they are not allowed to dig it into the ground, the only thing they can do at the moment is store it in containers and stack it up in a warehouse. just out side of Sheffield there is such a warehouse that stores fluoride southy
  • Score: 1

9:07pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Good on the Echo.. I posted the below fluoride NEUROTOXIN news four days ago, an Echo staff member must've read it.



-

Just one drop more in a tidal wave of evidence against fluoridation



FLUORIDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS TO BRAINS.

NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2014.

- Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains.

FLUORIDE IS NEWLY CLASSIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXIN BY MEDICAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARCH 2014 JOURNAL LANCET NEUROLOGY. The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine.

The authors write "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations." The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter.

DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXINS ARE CAPABLE OF CAUSING WIDESPREAD BRAIN DISORDERS SUCH AS AUTISM, ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, LEARNING DISABILITIES, AND OTHER COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS. THE HARM IS OFTEN UNTREATABLE AND PERMANENT.

Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries."
The authors say it's crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children's brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity.

"Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us."

PAUL CONNETT, PHD, FAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAYS, "IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDE AS A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN, ADDING MORE FLUORIDE TO AMERICAN'S ALREADY EXCESSIVE INTAKE NO LONGER HAS ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO REDUCE FLUORIDE INTAKE, NOT INCREASE IT."

The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers.

But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposur




e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing.

Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains."



,,

http://www.dailyecho


.co.uk/yoursay/lette


rs/11008629.What___s


_wrong_with_clean__p


ure_water_/
,,

Looks like Southampton has copped a £19m air pollution fine and if that's not bad enough the South Central Strategic Health Authority wants to put a NEUROTOXIN in our drinking water.. more EU fines!!

No doubt in my mind.. members of the South Central Strategic Health Authority will be in the firing line when Southampton is (EU) fined for dumping toxic waste into our drinking water.

-

UK FACES £300M FINE OVER FAILURE TO MEET AIR POLLUTION TARGETS BY 2010.

IAN JOHNSTON Thursday 20 February 2014.

poor air quality is the number one environmental cause of premature death in the EU with a toll that outstrips road traffic accidents.

"It is an invisible killer and it prevents many people from living a fully active life. It already costs Europe €330bn-€940bn (£277bn-£789bn) a year in extra health costs and prematurely killed over 100,000 people a year," he said last year.

CITY-DWELLERS ARE PARTICULARLY EXPOSED, AS MOST NITROGEN DIOXIDE ORIGINATES IN TRAFFIC FUMES … AIR POLLUTION LIMITS ARE REGULARLY EXCEEDED IN 16 ZONES ACROSS THE UK.

The affected areas are Greater London, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Teesside, the Potteries, Hull, SOUTHAMPTON, Glasgow, the east, the south-east, the east Midlands, Merseyside, Yorkshire & Humberside, the west Midlands, and the north-east. But the commission said that Britain had not presented any "credible and workable plan" for meeting air quality standards by 2015

-
http://www.theguardi

an.com/environment/2

014/feb/20/air-pollu

tion-european-commis

sion-legal-action-uk

-nitrogen-dioxide




,,,
,,

Forest hump says.. Why don't you move to the Moon sunshine? Not much going on there to scare you.


Your rant doesn't disguise the fact that the PHE board have no one qualified to reconsider their long standing decision to force a known dangerous to life NEUROTOXIN on Southampton..

I'm more than happy for PHE to OK pharmaceutical drugs,.. as they go through rigorous laboratory, animal and clinical trials.. phase one, two, three and four human testing over many years by physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, and other scientists before PHE can say yea or nay.

That fact Fluoride hasn't been tested like a pharmaceutical drug ( anywhere in the world) leaves me to believe that PHE will use the untested clinical trial side of Fluoridation as a get out of reasonably clause and a first line of defence... the second line ( if it had gone the right way) was the so called vote, mitigating all responsibilities.

A few words of free advice, take your brave rantings over to America.. It's been hinted that Fluoridation advocates/lobbyists are offering posters like you and Linesman 2 cents a word and a killer 2 dollars for words like mad, loonies and nutters.

As we know the British Fluoridation Society wouldn't stoop so low or would they?


,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Good on the Echo.. I posted the below fluoride NEUROTOXIN news four days ago, an Echo staff member must've read it. - Just one drop more in a tidal wave of evidence against fluoridation FLUORIDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS TO BRAINS. NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2014. - Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains. FLUORIDE IS NEWLY CLASSIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXIN BY MEDICAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARCH 2014 JOURNAL LANCET NEUROLOGY. The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine. The authors write "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations." The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter. DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXINS ARE CAPABLE OF CAUSING WIDESPREAD BRAIN DISORDERS SUCH AS AUTISM, ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, LEARNING DISABILITIES, AND OTHER COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS. THE HARM IS OFTEN UNTREATABLE AND PERMANENT. Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries." The authors say it's crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children's brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity. "Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us." PAUL CONNETT, PHD, FAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAYS, "IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDE AS A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN, ADDING MORE FLUORIDE TO AMERICAN'S ALREADY EXCESSIVE INTAKE NO LONGER HAS ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO REDUCE FLUORIDE INTAKE, NOT INCREASE IT." The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers. But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposur e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing. Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains." ,, http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/yoursay/lette rs/11008629.What___s _wrong_with_clean__p ure_water_/[/p][/quote],, Looks like Southampton has copped a £19m air pollution fine and if that's not bad enough the South Central Strategic Health Authority wants to put a NEUROTOXIN in our drinking water.. more EU fines!! No doubt in my mind.. members of the South Central Strategic Health Authority will be in the firing line when Southampton is (EU) fined for dumping toxic waste into our drinking water. - UK FACES £300M FINE OVER FAILURE TO MEET AIR POLLUTION TARGETS BY 2010. IAN JOHNSTON Thursday 20 February 2014. poor air quality is the number one environmental cause of premature death in the EU with a toll that outstrips road traffic accidents. "It is an invisible killer and it prevents many people from living a fully active life. It already costs Europe €330bn-€940bn (£277bn-£789bn) a year in extra health costs and prematurely killed over 100,000 people a year," he said last year. CITY-DWELLERS ARE PARTICULARLY EXPOSED, AS MOST NITROGEN DIOXIDE ORIGINATES IN TRAFFIC FUMES … AIR POLLUTION LIMITS ARE REGULARLY EXCEEDED IN 16 ZONES ACROSS THE UK. The affected areas are Greater London, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Teesside, the Potteries, Hull, SOUTHAMPTON, Glasgow, the east, the south-east, the east Midlands, Merseyside, Yorkshire & Humberside, the west Midlands, and the north-east. But the commission said that Britain had not presented any "credible and workable plan" for meeting air quality standards by 2015 - http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/2 014/feb/20/air-pollu tion-european-commis sion-legal-action-uk -nitrogen-dioxide ,,,[/p][/quote],, Forest hump says.. Why don't you move to the Moon sunshine? Not much going on there to scare you. Your rant doesn't disguise the fact that the PHE board have no one qualified to reconsider their long standing decision to force a known dangerous to life NEUROTOXIN on Southampton.. I'm more than happy for PHE to OK pharmaceutical drugs,.. as they go through rigorous laboratory, animal and clinical trials.. phase one, two, three and four human testing over many years by physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, and other scientists before PHE can say yea or nay. That fact Fluoride hasn't been tested like a pharmaceutical drug ( anywhere in the world) leaves me to believe that PHE will use the untested clinical trial side of Fluoridation as a get out of reasonably clause and a first line of defence... the second line ( if it had gone the right way) was the so called vote, mitigating all responsibilities. A few words of free advice, take your brave rantings over to America.. It's been hinted that Fluoridation advocates/lobbyists are offering posters like you and Linesman 2 cents a word and a killer 2 dollars for words like mad, loonies and nutters. As we know the British Fluoridation Society wouldn't stoop so low or would they? ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 1

3:25pm Sun 2 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Good on the Echo.. I posted the below fluoride NEUROTOXIN news four days ago, an Echo staff member must've read it.



-

Just one drop more in a tidal wave of evidence against fluoridation



FLUORIDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS TO BRAINS.

NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2014.

- Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains.

FLUORIDE IS NEWLY CLASSIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXIN BY MEDICAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARCH 2014 JOURNAL LANCET NEUROLOGY. The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine.

The authors write "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations." The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter.

DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXINS ARE CAPABLE OF CAUSING WIDESPREAD BRAIN DISORDERS SUCH AS AUTISM, ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, LEARNING DISABILITIES, AND OTHER COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS. THE HARM IS OFTEN UNTREATABLE AND PERMANENT.

Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries."
The authors say it's crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children's brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity.

"Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us."

PAUL CONNETT, PHD, FAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAYS, "IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDE AS A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN, ADDING MORE FLUORIDE TO AMERICAN'S ALREADY EXCESSIVE INTAKE NO LONGER HAS ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO REDUCE FLUORIDE INTAKE, NOT INCREASE IT."

The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers.

But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposur




e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing.

Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains."



,,

http://www.dailyecho


.co.uk/yoursay/lette


rs/11008629.What___s


_wrong_with_clean__p


ure_water_/
,,

Looks like Southampton has copped a £19m air pollution fine and if that's not bad enough the South Central Strategic Health Authority wants to put a NEUROTOXIN in our drinking water.. more EU fines!!

No doubt in my mind.. members of the South Central Strategic Health Authority will be in the firing line when Southampton is (EU) fined for dumping toxic waste into our drinking water.

-

UK FACES £300M FINE OVER FAILURE TO MEET AIR POLLUTION TARGETS BY 2010.

IAN JOHNSTON Thursday 20 February 2014.

poor air quality is the number one environmental cause of premature death in the EU with a toll that outstrips road traffic accidents.

"It is an invisible killer and it prevents many people from living a fully active life. It already costs Europe €330bn-€940bn (£277bn-£789bn) a year in extra health costs and prematurely killed over 100,000 people a year," he said last year.

CITY-DWELLERS ARE PARTICULARLY EXPOSED, AS MOST NITROGEN DIOXIDE ORIGINATES IN TRAFFIC FUMES … AIR POLLUTION LIMITS ARE REGULARLY EXCEEDED IN 16 ZONES ACROSS THE UK.

The affected areas are Greater London, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Teesside, the Potteries, Hull, SOUTHAMPTON, Glasgow, the east, the south-east, the east Midlands, Merseyside, Yorkshire & Humberside, the west Midlands, and the north-east. But the commission said that Britain had not presented any "credible and workable plan" for meeting air quality standards by 2015

-
http://www.theguardi

an.com/environment/2

014/feb/20/air-pollu

tion-european-commis

sion-legal-action-uk

-nitrogen-dioxide




,,,
The Daily Echo asked PHE to comment, but the organisation had not done so by the time the Echo went to print.


I can't see PHE replying to Echo without qualified advice from the UK's Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food Consumer Products and the Environment (COT)

http://cot.food.gov.
uk/


Maybe the Echo could make contact with COT for a fastacked answer?


,,

,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Good on the Echo.. I posted the below fluoride NEUROTOXIN news four days ago, an Echo staff member must've read it. - Just one drop more in a tidal wave of evidence against fluoridation FLUORIDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS TO BRAINS. NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2014. - Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains. FLUORIDE IS NEWLY CLASSIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXIN BY MEDICAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARCH 2014 JOURNAL LANCET NEUROLOGY. The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine. The authors write "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations." The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter. DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXINS ARE CAPABLE OF CAUSING WIDESPREAD BRAIN DISORDERS SUCH AS AUTISM, ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, LEARNING DISABILITIES, AND OTHER COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS. THE HARM IS OFTEN UNTREATABLE AND PERMANENT. Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries." The authors say it's crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children's brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity. "Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us." PAUL CONNETT, PHD, FAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAYS, "IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDE AS A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN, ADDING MORE FLUORIDE TO AMERICAN'S ALREADY EXCESSIVE INTAKE NO LONGER HAS ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO REDUCE FLUORIDE INTAKE, NOT INCREASE IT." The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers. But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposur e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing. Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains." ,, http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/yoursay/lette rs/11008629.What___s _wrong_with_clean__p ure_water_/[/p][/quote],, Looks like Southampton has copped a £19m air pollution fine and if that's not bad enough the South Central Strategic Health Authority wants to put a NEUROTOXIN in our drinking water.. more EU fines!! No doubt in my mind.. members of the South Central Strategic Health Authority will be in the firing line when Southampton is (EU) fined for dumping toxic waste into our drinking water. - UK FACES £300M FINE OVER FAILURE TO MEET AIR POLLUTION TARGETS BY 2010. IAN JOHNSTON Thursday 20 February 2014. poor air quality is the number one environmental cause of premature death in the EU with a toll that outstrips road traffic accidents. "It is an invisible killer and it prevents many people from living a fully active life. It already costs Europe €330bn-€940bn (£277bn-£789bn) a year in extra health costs and prematurely killed over 100,000 people a year," he said last year. CITY-DWELLERS ARE PARTICULARLY EXPOSED, AS MOST NITROGEN DIOXIDE ORIGINATES IN TRAFFIC FUMES … AIR POLLUTION LIMITS ARE REGULARLY EXCEEDED IN 16 ZONES ACROSS THE UK. The affected areas are Greater London, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Teesside, the Potteries, Hull, SOUTHAMPTON, Glasgow, the east, the south-east, the east Midlands, Merseyside, Yorkshire & Humberside, the west Midlands, and the north-east. But the commission said that Britain had not presented any "credible and workable plan" for meeting air quality standards by 2015 - http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/2 014/feb/20/air-pollu tion-european-commis sion-legal-action-uk -nitrogen-dioxide ,,,[/p][/quote]The Daily Echo asked PHE to comment, but the organisation had not done so by the time the Echo went to print. I can't see PHE replying to Echo without qualified advice from the UK's Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) http://cot.food.gov. uk/ Maybe the Echo could make contact with COT for a fastacked answer? ,, ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

1:45am Mon 3 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Good on the Echo.. I posted the below fluoride NEUROTOXIN news four days ago, an Echo staff member must've read it.



-

Just one drop more in a tidal wave of evidence against fluoridation



FLUORIDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS TO BRAINS.

NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2014.

- Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains.

FLUORIDE IS NEWLY CLASSIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXIN BY MEDICAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARCH 2014 JOURNAL LANCET NEUROLOGY. The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine.

The authors write "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations." The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter.

DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXINS ARE CAPABLE OF CAUSING WIDESPREAD BRAIN DISORDERS SUCH AS AUTISM, ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, LEARNING DISABILITIES, AND OTHER COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS. THE HARM IS OFTEN UNTREATABLE AND PERMANENT.

Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries."
The authors say it's crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children's brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity.

"Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us."

PAUL CONNETT, PHD, FAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAYS, "IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDE AS A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN, ADDING MORE FLUORIDE TO AMERICAN'S ALREADY EXCESSIVE INTAKE NO LONGER HAS ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO REDUCE FLUORIDE INTAKE, NOT INCREASE IT."

The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers.

But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposur





e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing.

Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains."



,,

http://www.dailyecho



.co.uk/yoursay/lette



rs/11008629.What___s



_wrong_with_clean__p



ure_water_/
,,

Looks like Southampton has copped a £19m air pollution fine and if that's not bad enough the South Central Strategic Health Authority wants to put a NEUROTOXIN in our drinking water.. more EU fines!!

No doubt in my mind.. members of the South Central Strategic Health Authority will be in the firing line when Southampton is (EU) fined for dumping toxic waste into our drinking water.

-

UK FACES £300M FINE OVER FAILURE TO MEET AIR POLLUTION TARGETS BY 2010.

IAN JOHNSTON Thursday 20 February 2014.

poor air quality is the number one environmental cause of premature death in the EU with a toll that outstrips road traffic accidents.

"It is an invisible killer and it prevents many people from living a fully active life. It already costs Europe €330bn-€940bn (£277bn-£789bn) a year in extra health costs and prematurely killed over 100,000 people a year," he said last year.

CITY-DWELLERS ARE PARTICULARLY EXPOSED, AS MOST NITROGEN DIOXIDE ORIGINATES IN TRAFFIC FUMES … AIR POLLUTION LIMITS ARE REGULARLY EXCEEDED IN 16 ZONES ACROSS THE UK.

The affected areas are Greater London, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Teesside, the Potteries, Hull, SOUTHAMPTON, Glasgow, the east, the south-east, the east Midlands, Merseyside, Yorkshire & Humberside, the west Midlands, and the north-east. But the commission said that Britain had not presented any "credible and workable plan" for meeting air quality standards by 2015

-
http://www.theguardi


an.com/environment/2


014/feb/20/air-pollu


tion-european-commis


sion-legal-action-uk


-nitrogen-dioxide




,,,
The Daily Echo asked PHE to comment, but the organisation had not done so by the time the Echo went to print.


I can't see PHE replying to Echo without qualified advice from the UK's Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food Consumer Products and the Environment (COT)

http://cot.food.gov.

uk/


Maybe the Echo could make contact with COT for a fastacked answer?


,,

,,
Re: Maybe the Echo could make contact with COT for a fastacked answer?

-

Chair of Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) is David Coggon, Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton.

http://cot.food.gov.
uk/membership/cotcha
ir


Professor David Coggon

Phone: (023) 8077 7624

Fax: (023) 8070 4021

Email: dnc@mrc.soton.ac.uk


,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Good on the Echo.. I posted the below fluoride NEUROTOXIN news four days ago, an Echo staff member must've read it. - Just one drop more in a tidal wave of evidence against fluoridation FLUORIDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS TO BRAINS. NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2014. - Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains. FLUORIDE IS NEWLY CLASSIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXIN BY MEDICAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARCH 2014 JOURNAL LANCET NEUROLOGY. The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine. The authors write "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations." The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter. DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXINS ARE CAPABLE OF CAUSING WIDESPREAD BRAIN DISORDERS SUCH AS AUTISM, ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, LEARNING DISABILITIES, AND OTHER COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS. THE HARM IS OFTEN UNTREATABLE AND PERMANENT. Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries." The authors say it's crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children's brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity. "Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us." PAUL CONNETT, PHD, FAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAYS, "IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDE AS A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN, ADDING MORE FLUORIDE TO AMERICAN'S ALREADY EXCESSIVE INTAKE NO LONGER HAS ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO REDUCE FLUORIDE INTAKE, NOT INCREASE IT." The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers. But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposur e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing. Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains." ,, http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/yoursay/lette rs/11008629.What___s _wrong_with_clean__p ure_water_/[/p][/quote],, Looks like Southampton has copped a £19m air pollution fine and if that's not bad enough the South Central Strategic Health Authority wants to put a NEUROTOXIN in our drinking water.. more EU fines!! No doubt in my mind.. members of the South Central Strategic Health Authority will be in the firing line when Southampton is (EU) fined for dumping toxic waste into our drinking water. - UK FACES £300M FINE OVER FAILURE TO MEET AIR POLLUTION TARGETS BY 2010. IAN JOHNSTON Thursday 20 February 2014. poor air quality is the number one environmental cause of premature death in the EU with a toll that outstrips road traffic accidents. "It is an invisible killer and it prevents many people from living a fully active life. It already costs Europe €330bn-€940bn (£277bn-£789bn) a year in extra health costs and prematurely killed over 100,000 people a year," he said last year. CITY-DWELLERS ARE PARTICULARLY EXPOSED, AS MOST NITROGEN DIOXIDE ORIGINATES IN TRAFFIC FUMES … AIR POLLUTION LIMITS ARE REGULARLY EXCEEDED IN 16 ZONES ACROSS THE UK. The affected areas are Greater London, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Teesside, the Potteries, Hull, SOUTHAMPTON, Glasgow, the east, the south-east, the east Midlands, Merseyside, Yorkshire & Humberside, the west Midlands, and the north-east. But the commission said that Britain had not presented any "credible and workable plan" for meeting air quality standards by 2015 - http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/2 014/feb/20/air-pollu tion-european-commis sion-legal-action-uk -nitrogen-dioxide ,,,[/p][/quote]The Daily Echo asked PHE to comment, but the organisation had not done so by the time the Echo went to print. I can't see PHE replying to Echo without qualified advice from the UK's Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) http://cot.food.gov. uk/ Maybe the Echo could make contact with COT for a fastacked answer? ,, ,,[/p][/quote]Re: Maybe the Echo could make contact with COT for a fastacked answer? - Chair of Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) is David Coggon, Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton. http://cot.food.gov. uk/membership/cotcha ir Professor David Coggon Phone: (023) 8077 7624 Fax: (023) 8070 4021 Email: dnc@mrc.soton.ac.uk ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

2:42am Tue 4 Mar 14

chrisnz says...

Myth 4: Drinking out of aluminum cans or cooking in aluminum pots and pans can lead to Alzheimer’s disease.

Reality: During the 1960s and 1970s, aluminum emerged as a possible suspect in Alzheimer’s. This suspicion led to concern about exposure to aluminum through everyday sources such as pots and pans, beverage cans, antacids and antiperspirants. Since then, studies have failed to confirm any role for aluminum in causing Alzheimer’s. Experts today focus on other areas of research, and few believe that everyday sources of aluminum pose any threat.
http://www.alz.org/a
lzheimers_disease_my
ths_about_alzheimers
.asp
Myth 4: Drinking out of aluminum cans or cooking in aluminum pots and pans can lead to Alzheimer’s disease. Reality: During the 1960s and 1970s, aluminum emerged as a possible suspect in Alzheimer’s. This suspicion led to concern about exposure to aluminum through everyday sources such as pots and pans, beverage cans, antacids and antiperspirants. Since then, studies have failed to confirm any role for aluminum in causing Alzheimer’s. Experts today focus on other areas of research, and few believe that everyday sources of aluminum pose any threat. http://www.alz.org/a lzheimers_disease_my ths_about_alzheimers .asp chrisnz
  • Score: -1

2:43am Tue 4 Mar 14

chrisnz says...

The Lancet paper is nothing new, and is still lies
The Lancet, a British science journal, published an article online (Feb. 15) about autism, ADHD and other neurodevelopmental disabilities and the role that lead and other neurotoxicants play in these health issues. The co-authors, Philippe Grandjean and Philip Landrigan, express concern about what they call a “pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity,” and they identify six neurotoxicants that include fluoride. Although the article never refers to the optimal fluoride level used to fluoridate community water systems, groups that oppose water fluoridation have cited the article to attack fluoride. The following information puts The Lancet article in its proper scientific context and summarizes key concerns with those 27 studies.

Fluoride is a mineral that exists naturally in virtually all water supplies, but in most drinking water, the fluoride concentration is too low to prevent tooth decay. This is why so many communities across America fortify their water with additional fluoride to reach the optimal level. Nearly 70 years of experience and research have demonstrated that fluoridated water is a safe and effective way to significantly reduce the rate of tooth decay.

A health reporter for USA Today wrote a story about The Lancet article and pointed out that the concerns about fluoride are focused on high concentrations that have “caused problems in China, though the low levels added to American drinking water are presumed safe.”

Fluoridated water is safe. The National Research Council has produced five different reports on fluoride or fluoridation, and it has released three of them since 1993. None of these reports has raised health concerns about water that is fluoridated to the optimal level.

The Lancet article did not share any new studies about fluoride; the only research it cited was a set of 27 studies that were reviewed in a 2012 scientific journal. The U.S. researchers who reviewed those 27 IQ studies — 23 are from China — pointed out that each study suffered from some flaw and “in some cases rather serious ones, that limit the conclusions that can be drawn.”

Most of the 27 studies tested fluoride levels that were far higher than the optimal level used to fluoridate public water systems in the U.S. Many of these studies did not measure the actual fluoride level in the local water, making them unreliable. There is no clear evidence that these 27 studies were designed to rule out other factors (such as lead and arsenic exposure) that could have affected IQ scores. Arsenic and lead exposure are significant problems in China.

The oral health community welcomes additional research on the effectiveness and safety of fluoridation. Few health topics have been as thoroughly researched as fluoridation and fluoride, and we expect to see even more studies in the future.
The Lancet paper is nothing new, and is still lies The Lancet, a British science journal, published an article online (Feb. 15) about autism, ADHD and other neurodevelopmental disabilities and the role that lead and other neurotoxicants play in these health issues. The co-authors, Philippe Grandjean and Philip Landrigan, express concern about what they call a “pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity,” and they identify six neurotoxicants that include fluoride. Although the article never refers to the optimal fluoride level used to fluoridate community water systems, groups that oppose water fluoridation have cited the article to attack fluoride. The following information puts The Lancet article in its proper scientific context and summarizes key concerns with those 27 studies. Fluoride is a mineral that exists naturally in virtually all water supplies, but in most drinking water, the fluoride concentration is too low to prevent tooth decay. This is why so many communities across America fortify their water with additional fluoride to reach the optimal level. Nearly 70 years of experience and research have demonstrated that fluoridated water is a safe and effective way to significantly reduce the rate of tooth decay. A health reporter for USA Today wrote a story about The Lancet article and pointed out that the concerns about fluoride are focused on high concentrations that have “caused problems in China, though the low levels added to American drinking water are presumed safe.” Fluoridated water is safe. The National Research Council has produced five different reports on fluoride or fluoridation, and it has released three of them since 1993. None of these reports has raised health concerns about water that is fluoridated to the optimal level. The Lancet article did not share any new studies about fluoride; the only research it cited was a set of 27 studies that were reviewed in a 2012 scientific journal. The U.S. researchers who reviewed those 27 IQ studies — 23 are from China — pointed out that each study suffered from some flaw and “in some cases rather serious ones, that limit the conclusions that can be drawn.” Most of the 27 studies tested fluoride levels that were far higher than the optimal level used to fluoridate public water systems in the U.S. Many of these studies did not measure the actual fluoride level in the local water, making them unreliable. There is no clear evidence that these 27 studies were designed to rule out other factors (such as lead and arsenic exposure) that could have affected IQ scores. Arsenic and lead exposure are significant problems in China. The oral health community welcomes additional research on the effectiveness and safety of fluoridation. Few health topics have been as thoroughly researched as fluoridation and fluoride, and we expect to see even more studies in the future. chrisnz
  • Score: -2

2:47am Tue 4 Mar 14

chrisnz says...

But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposu
e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing.
In regard to CDC/Beltrain-Aguilar
, that “41% of all children” is composed of 37.1% with mild to very mild dental fluorosis, both of which are barely detectable, benign conditions requiring no treatment, and which have no effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. The other 3.8% are those with moderate dental fluorosis, a condition which manifests as white areas on teeth. Whether or not these moderately fluorosed teeth require any restoration depends on the preferences of the patients and their parents. Some may be concerned enough with the cosmetics to desire treatment, others may not. There was not enough evidence of severe dental fluorosis to even be quantifiable.
But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposu e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing. In regard to CDC/Beltrain-Aguilar , that “41% of all children” is composed of 37.1% with mild to very mild dental fluorosis, both of which are barely detectable, benign conditions requiring no treatment, and which have no effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. The other 3.8% are those with moderate dental fluorosis, a condition which manifests as white areas on teeth. Whether or not these moderately fluorosed teeth require any restoration depends on the preferences of the patients and their parents. Some may be concerned enough with the cosmetics to desire treatment, others may not. There was not enough evidence of severe dental fluorosis to even be quantifiable. chrisnz
  • Score: 0

2:51am Tue 4 Mar 14

chrisnz says...

bluejune62 wrote:
so your ok with drinking and bathing in toxic waste chemicals??

Do you understand what the word 'toxic' means? I'm going to bet that you don't.
What a load of rubbish. You have the toxocology reports to back up this statement??
A 2006 University of Michigan study used nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) technology to show that hexafluorosilicic acid (HFSA), the most commonly used water additive, completely dissociates in water. In simple terms this means that there is no HFSA or any fluorosilicic molecular fragments in tap water.

The products of HFSA dissociation are fluoride ions and silicon dioxide. SiO2 is the most common oxide in the earth's crust (sand) and is present naturally in vegetative cell walls. The only "chemicals" from water fluoridation additives at the tap are fluoride ions and sand.

Additionally, 'Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water.'
http://ec.europa.eu/
.../environmenta.../
docs/scher_o_139.pdf
bluejune62 wrote: so your ok with drinking and bathing in toxic waste chemicals?? Do you understand what the word 'toxic' means? I'm going to bet that you don't. What a load of rubbish. You have the toxocology reports to back up this statement?? A 2006 University of Michigan study used nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) technology to show that hexafluorosilicic acid (HFSA), the most commonly used water additive, completely dissociates in water. In simple terms this means that there is no HFSA or any fluorosilicic molecular fragments in tap water. The products of HFSA dissociation are fluoride ions and silicon dioxide. SiO2 is the most common oxide in the earth's crust (sand) and is present naturally in vegetative cell walls. The only "chemicals" from water fluoridation additives at the tap are fluoride ions and sand. Additionally, 'Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water.' http://ec.europa.eu/ .../environmenta.../ docs/scher_o_139.pdf chrisnz
  • Score: -1

9:43pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Good on the Echo.. I posted the below fluoride NEUROTOXIN news four days ago, an Echo staff member must've read it.



-

Just one drop more in a tidal wave of evidence against fluoridation



FLUORIDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS TO BRAINS.

NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2014.

- Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains.

FLUORIDE IS NEWLY CLASSIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXIN BY MEDICAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARCH 2014 JOURNAL LANCET NEUROLOGY. The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine.

The authors write "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations." The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter.

DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXINS ARE CAPABLE OF CAUSING WIDESPREAD BRAIN DISORDERS SUCH AS AUTISM, ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, LEARNING DISABILITIES, AND OTHER COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS. THE HARM IS OFTEN UNTREATABLE AND PERMANENT.

Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries."
The authors say it's crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children's brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity.

"Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us."

PAUL CONNETT, PHD, FAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAYS, "IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDE AS A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN, ADDING MORE FLUORIDE TO AMERICAN'S ALREADY EXCESSIVE INTAKE NO LONGER HAS ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO REDUCE FLUORIDE INTAKE, NOT INCREASE IT."

The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers.

But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposur



e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing.

Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains."



,,

http://www.dailyecho

.co.uk/yoursay/lette

rs/11008629.What___s

_wrong_with_clean__p

ure_water_/
''


ACCORDING TO an Echo poster called WalkingOnAWires...

The 2011 census has a figure of 27,200 children aged 0-9 in Southampton. If we assume 5/9 of those are aged 0-5 then that's about 15,000 children. 15% of 15,000 is 2,250 children who would otherwise have tooth decay

http://tinyurl.com/n
ma4vs6


I have no reason to doubt him on the 2011 census figure of 27,200 Children... BUT


ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR STEPHEN PECKHAM 70% (3/4) of those 27,200 Children do not and may never have any dental disease.. that leaves 1/4, 6,800 Children who may at some time have dental disease issues..

PHE found 11% less GENERAL tooth decay for 12-year-olds when Toxic Waste/Fluoride is added to drinking water (hopefully at some point in time all those 6,800 children will reach the age of 12), So if you extract out the 11% from the 6,800 Children who may or may not get GENERAL tooth decay by the time their 12-year-olds you have PHEs targeted 748 Children

If we agree to say ( given variables like inflation ) fluoridation will cost Southampton £80,000 per year.. over a 12-year period you have a sum of £960,000.

( as of 2008, £59,000 per a year/ £471,000 installing plant, http://tinyurl.com/n
4kfyaj )

Given the on going shambles.. at the very least, against the will of Southampton it will cost over £1m to put Toxic waste/fluoride into our drinking water supply

Taken all costs into consideration (anything above £2m) to have 11% less (748) 12-year-olds with GENERAL tooth decay lumbers Taxpayers and Southampton with a bill of £2,673 per child.. £21,384 over a 96 year lifetime.

... and who's to say those 748 Children are not the most vulnerable to Toxic Poisoning?.. Fluoridated Birmingham has the highest Infant mortality rate in the UK, worse than in Cuba and on a par with Latvia and Chile.

-

At the end of the day however you move the figures up or down in favour of fluoridation.. it would be more cost effective to give them all a free lifetime supply of dentures.

Thankfully there are better/safer ways to fight tooth decay in low-income families, the Childsmile program has shown that large reductions in tooth decay can be achieved in Children from low-income families by teaching tooth brushing in nursery schools and educating parents on better diets



,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Good on the Echo.. I posted the below fluoride NEUROTOXIN news four days ago, an Echo staff member must've read it. - Just one drop more in a tidal wave of evidence against fluoridation FLUORIDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS TO BRAINS. NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2014. - Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains. FLUORIDE IS NEWLY CLASSIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXIN BY MEDICAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARCH 2014 JOURNAL LANCET NEUROLOGY. The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine. The authors write "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations." The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter. DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXINS ARE CAPABLE OF CAUSING WIDESPREAD BRAIN DISORDERS SUCH AS AUTISM, ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, LEARNING DISABILITIES, AND OTHER COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS. THE HARM IS OFTEN UNTREATABLE AND PERMANENT. Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries." The authors say it's crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children's brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity. "Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us." PAUL CONNETT, PHD, FAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAYS, "IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDE AS A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN, ADDING MORE FLUORIDE TO AMERICAN'S ALREADY EXCESSIVE INTAKE NO LONGER HAS ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO REDUCE FLUORIDE INTAKE, NOT INCREASE IT." The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers. But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposur e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing. Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains." ,, http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/yoursay/lette rs/11008629.What___s _wrong_with_clean__p ure_water_/[/p][/quote]'' ACCORDING TO an Echo poster called WalkingOnAWires... The 2011 census has a figure of 27,200 children aged 0-9 in Southampton. If we assume 5/9 of those are aged 0-5 then that's about 15,000 children. 15% of 15,000 is 2,250 children who would otherwise have tooth decay http://tinyurl.com/n ma4vs6 I have no reason to doubt him on the 2011 census figure of 27,200 Children... BUT ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR STEPHEN PECKHAM 70% (3/4) of those 27,200 Children do not and may never have any dental disease.. that leaves 1/4, 6,800 Children who may at some time have dental disease issues.. PHE found 11% less GENERAL tooth decay for 12-year-olds when Toxic Waste/Fluoride is added to drinking water (hopefully at some point in time all those 6,800 children will reach the age of 12), So if you extract out the 11% from the 6,800 Children who may or may not get GENERAL tooth decay by the time their 12-year-olds you have PHEs targeted 748 Children If we agree to say ( given variables like inflation ) fluoridation will cost Southampton £80,000 per year.. over a 12-year period you have a sum of £960,000. ( as of 2008, £59,000 per a year/ £471,000 installing plant, http://tinyurl.com/n 4kfyaj ) Given the on going shambles.. at the very least, against the will of Southampton it will cost over £1m to put Toxic waste/fluoride into our drinking water supply Taken all costs into consideration (anything above £2m) to have 11% less (748) 12-year-olds with GENERAL tooth decay lumbers Taxpayers and Southampton with a bill of £2,673 per child.. £21,384 over a 96 year lifetime. ... and who's to say those 748 Children are not the most vulnerable to Toxic Poisoning?.. Fluoridated Birmingham has the highest Infant mortality rate in the UK, worse than in Cuba and on a par with Latvia and Chile. - At the end of the day however you move the figures up or down in favour of fluoridation.. it would be more cost effective to give them all a free lifetime supply of dentures. Thankfully there are better/safer ways to fight tooth decay in low-income families, the Childsmile program has shown that large reductions in tooth decay can be achieved in Children from low-income families by teaching tooth brushing in nursery schools and educating parents on better diets ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

6:01am Fri 28 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Good on the Echo.. I posted the below fluoride NEUROTOXIN news four days ago, an Echo staff member must've read it.



-

Just one drop more in a tidal wave of evidence against fluoridation



FLUORIDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS TO BRAINS.

NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2014.

- Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains.

FLUORIDE IS NEWLY CLASSIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXIN BY MEDICAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARCH 2014 JOURNAL LANCET NEUROLOGY. The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine.

The authors write "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations." The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter.

DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXINS ARE CAPABLE OF CAUSING WIDESPREAD BRAIN DISORDERS SUCH AS AUTISM, ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, LEARNING DISABILITIES, AND OTHER COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS. THE HARM IS OFTEN UNTREATABLE AND PERMANENT.

Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries."
The authors say it's crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children's brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity.

"Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us."

PAUL CONNETT, PHD, FAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAYS, "IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDE AS A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN, ADDING MORE FLUORIDE TO AMERICAN'S ALREADY EXCESSIVE INTAKE NO LONGER HAS ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO REDUCE FLUORIDE INTAKE, NOT INCREASE IT."

The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers.

But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposur




e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing.

Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains."



,,

http://www.dailyecho


.co.uk/yoursay/lette


rs/11008629.What___s


_wrong_with_clean__p


ure_water_/
''


ACCORDING TO an Echo poster called WalkingOnAWires...

The 2011 census has a figure of 27,200 children aged 0-9 in Southampton. If we assume 5/9 of those are aged 0-5 then that's about 15,000 children. 15% of 15,000 is 2,250 children who would otherwise have tooth decay

http://tinyurl.com/n

ma4vs6


I have no reason to doubt him on the 2011 census figure of 27,200 Children... BUT


ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR STEPHEN PECKHAM 70% (3/4) of those 27,200 Children do not and may never have any dental disease.. that leaves 1/4, 6,800 Children who may at some time have dental disease issues..

PHE found 11% less GENERAL tooth decay for 12-year-olds when Toxic Waste/Fluoride is added to drinking water (hopefully at some point in time all those 6,800 children will reach the age of 12), So if you extract out the 11% from the 6,800 Children who may or may not get GENERAL tooth decay by the time their 12-year-olds you have PHEs targeted 748 Children

If we agree to say ( given variables like inflation ) fluoridation will cost Southampton £80,000 per year.. over a 12-year period you have a sum of £960,000.

( as of 2008, £59,000 per a year/ £471,000 installing plant, http://tinyurl.com/n

4kfyaj )

Given the on going shambles.. at the very least, against the will of Southampton it will cost over £1m to put Toxic waste/fluoride into our drinking water supply

Taken all costs into consideration (anything above £2m) to have 11% less (748) 12-year-olds with GENERAL tooth decay lumbers Taxpayers and Southampton with a bill of £2,673 per child.. £21,384 over a 96 year lifetime.

... and who's to say those 748 Children are not the most vulnerable to Toxic Poisoning?.. Fluoridated Birmingham has the highest Infant mortality rate in the UK, worse than in Cuba and on a par with Latvia and Chile.

-

At the end of the day however you move the figures up or down in favour of fluoridation.. it would be more cost effective to give them all a free lifetime supply of dentures.

Thankfully there are better/safer ways to fight tooth decay in low-income families, the Childsmile program has shown that large reductions in tooth decay can be achieved in Children from low-income families by teaching tooth brushing in nursery schools and educating parents on better diets



,,
,,


I'll make do with the below figures until I can find out exactly how many Totton, Eastleigh and Southampton 12-year-old's PHE is targeting


The below data relates to births recorded by Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust (SUHT) Includes births to mothers with a home postcode within Southampton. does not include births to mothers with a Southampton postcode but the birth occurs within a loction not covered by SUHT


2009/10 Live Births in Southampton shot up to 3,224 from 2,816 in 2006/7


Taking the higher figure of the two, 3,224 x 12 yrs = 38,688 Children (using Prof Peckham's and PHE's stats )... over a 12-year period Southampton will have 1,064 less 12-year old Children with GENERAL tooth decay.

If 12 yrs of Fluoridation soul purpose is to reduce 12-year old Children's GENERAL tooth decay by 11% it would be a crime on biblical proportions.

-

Does that small 11% benefit tail off?.. PHE's report mentions Hip fractures, Kidney stones, Cancers etc, but fails to mention any benefits for Teenagers

Fluoridation... Zero statistical benefits for Teenagers or detrimental?


,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Good on the Echo.. I posted the below fluoride NEUROTOXIN news four days ago, an Echo staff member must've read it. - Just one drop more in a tidal wave of evidence against fluoridation FLUORIDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS TO BRAINS. NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2014. - Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains. FLUORIDE IS NEWLY CLASSIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXIN BY MEDICAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARCH 2014 JOURNAL LANCET NEUROLOGY. The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine. The authors write "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations." The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter. DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXINS ARE CAPABLE OF CAUSING WIDESPREAD BRAIN DISORDERS SUCH AS AUTISM, ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, LEARNING DISABILITIES, AND OTHER COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS. THE HARM IS OFTEN UNTREATABLE AND PERMANENT. Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries." The authors say it's crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children's brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity. "Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us." PAUL CONNETT, PHD, FAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAYS, "IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDE AS A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN, ADDING MORE FLUORIDE TO AMERICAN'S ALREADY EXCESSIVE INTAKE NO LONGER HAS ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO REDUCE FLUORIDE INTAKE, NOT INCREASE IT." The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers. But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposur e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing. Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains." ,, http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/yoursay/lette rs/11008629.What___s _wrong_with_clean__p ure_water_/[/p][/quote]'' ACCORDING TO an Echo poster called WalkingOnAWires... The 2011 census has a figure of 27,200 children aged 0-9 in Southampton. If we assume 5/9 of those are aged 0-5 then that's about 15,000 children. 15% of 15,000 is 2,250 children who would otherwise have tooth decay http://tinyurl.com/n ma4vs6 I have no reason to doubt him on the 2011 census figure of 27,200 Children... BUT ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR STEPHEN PECKHAM 70% (3/4) of those 27,200 Children do not and may never have any dental disease.. that leaves 1/4, 6,800 Children who may at some time have dental disease issues.. PHE found 11% less GENERAL tooth decay for 12-year-olds when Toxic Waste/Fluoride is added to drinking water (hopefully at some point in time all those 6,800 children will reach the age of 12), So if you extract out the 11% from the 6,800 Children who may or may not get GENERAL tooth decay by the time their 12-year-olds you have PHEs targeted 748 Children If we agree to say ( given variables like inflation ) fluoridation will cost Southampton £80,000 per year.. over a 12-year period you have a sum of £960,000. ( as of 2008, £59,000 per a year/ £471,000 installing plant, http://tinyurl.com/n 4kfyaj ) Given the on going shambles.. at the very least, against the will of Southampton it will cost over £1m to put Toxic waste/fluoride into our drinking water supply Taken all costs into consideration (anything above £2m) to have 11% less (748) 12-year-olds with GENERAL tooth decay lumbers Taxpayers and Southampton with a bill of £2,673 per child.. £21,384 over a 96 year lifetime. ... and who's to say those 748 Children are not the most vulnerable to Toxic Poisoning?.. Fluoridated Birmingham has the highest Infant mortality rate in the UK, worse than in Cuba and on a par with Latvia and Chile. - At the end of the day however you move the figures up or down in favour of fluoridation.. it would be more cost effective to give them all a free lifetime supply of dentures. Thankfully there are better/safer ways to fight tooth decay in low-income families, the Childsmile program has shown that large reductions in tooth decay can be achieved in Children from low-income families by teaching tooth brushing in nursery schools and educating parents on better diets ,,[/p][/quote],, I'll make do with the below figures until I can find out exactly how many Totton, Eastleigh and Southampton 12-year-old's PHE is targeting The below data relates to births recorded by Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust (SUHT) Includes births to mothers with a home postcode within Southampton. does not include births to mothers with a Southampton postcode but the birth occurs within a loction not covered by SUHT 2009/10 Live Births in Southampton shot up to 3,224 from 2,816 in 2006/7 Taking the higher figure of the two, 3,224 x 12 yrs = 38,688 Children (using Prof Peckham's and PHE's stats )... over a 12-year period Southampton will have 1,064 less 12-year old Children with GENERAL tooth decay. If 12 yrs of Fluoridation soul purpose is to reduce 12-year old Children's GENERAL tooth decay by 11% it would be a crime on biblical proportions. - Does that small 11% benefit tail off?.. PHE's report mentions Hip fractures, Kidney stones, Cancers etc, but fails to mention any benefits for Teenagers Fluoridation... Zero statistical benefits for Teenagers or detrimental? ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

9:10pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Good on the Echo.. I posted the below fluoride NEUROTOXIN news four days ago, an Echo staff member must've read it.



-

Just one drop more in a tidal wave of evidence against fluoridation



FLUORIDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS TO BRAINS.

NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2014.

- Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains.

FLUORIDE IS NEWLY CLASSIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXIN BY MEDICAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARCH 2014 JOURNAL LANCET NEUROLOGY. The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine.

The authors write "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations." The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter.

DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXINS ARE CAPABLE OF CAUSING WIDESPREAD BRAIN DISORDERS SUCH AS AUTISM, ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, LEARNING DISABILITIES, AND OTHER COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS. THE HARM IS OFTEN UNTREATABLE AND PERMANENT.

Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries."
The authors say it's crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children's brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity.

"Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us."

PAUL CONNETT, PHD, FAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAYS, "IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDE AS A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN, ADDING MORE FLUORIDE TO AMERICAN'S ALREADY EXCESSIVE INTAKE NO LONGER HAS ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO REDUCE FLUORIDE INTAKE, NOT INCREASE IT."

The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers.

But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposur





e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing.

Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains."



,,

http://www.dailyecho



.co.uk/yoursay/lette



rs/11008629.What___s



_wrong_with_clean__p



ure_water_/
''


ACCORDING TO an Echo poster called WalkingOnAWires...

The 2011 census has a figure of 27,200 children aged 0-9 in Southampton. If we assume 5/9 of those are aged 0-5 then that's about 15,000 children. 15% of 15,000 is 2,250 children who would otherwise have tooth decay

http://tinyurl.com/n


ma4vs6


I have no reason to doubt him on the 2011 census figure of 27,200 Children... BUT


ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR STEPHEN PECKHAM 70% (3/4) of those 27,200 Children do not and may never have any dental disease.. that leaves 1/4, 6,800 Children who may at some time have dental disease issues..

PHE found 11% less GENERAL tooth decay for 12-year-olds when Toxic Waste/Fluoride is added to drinking water (hopefully at some point in time all those 6,800 children will reach the age of 12), So if you extract out the 11% from the 6,800 Children who may or may not get GENERAL tooth decay by the time their 12-year-olds you have PHEs targeted 748 Children

If we agree to say ( given variables like inflation ) fluoridation will cost Southampton £80,000 per year.. over a 12-year period you have a sum of £960,000.

( as of 2008, £59,000 per a year/ £471,000 installing plant, http://tinyurl.com/n


4kfyaj )

Given the on going shambles.. at the very least, against the will of Southampton it will cost over £1m to put Toxic waste/fluoride into our drinking water supply

Taken all costs into consideration (anything above £2m) to have 11% less (748) 12-year-olds with GENERAL tooth decay lumbers Taxpayers and Southampton with a bill of £2,673 per child.. £21,384 over a 96 year lifetime.

... and who's to say those 748 Children are not the most vulnerable to Toxic Poisoning?.. Fluoridated Birmingham has the highest Infant mortality rate in the UK, worse than in Cuba and on a par with Latvia and Chile.

-

At the end of the day however you move the figures up or down in favour of fluoridation.. it would be more cost effective to give them all a free lifetime supply of dentures.

Thankfully there are better/safer ways to fight tooth decay in low-income families, the Childsmile program has shown that large reductions in tooth decay can be achieved in Children from low-income families by teaching tooth brushing in nursery schools and educating parents on better diets



,,
,,


I'll make do with the below figures until I can find out exactly how many Totton, Eastleigh and Southampton 12-year-old's PHE is targeting


The below data relates to births recorded by Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust (SUHT) Includes births to mothers with a home postcode within Southampton. does not include births to mothers with a Southampton postcode but the birth occurs within a loction not covered by SUHT


2009/10 Live Births in Southampton shot up to 3,224 from 2,816 in 2006/7


Taking the higher figure of the two, 3,224 x 12 yrs = 38,688 Children (using Prof Peckham's and PHE's stats )... over a 12-year period Southampton will have 1,064 less 12-year old Children with GENERAL tooth decay.

If 12 yrs of Fluoridation soul purpose is to reduce 12-year old Children's GENERAL tooth decay by 11% it would be a crime on biblical proportions.

-

Does that small 11% benefit tail off?.. PHE's report mentions Hip fractures, Kidney stones, Cancers etc, but fails to mention any benefits for Teenagers

Fluoridation... Zero statistical benefits for Teenagers or detrimental?


,,
,,


PHEs Best Case Scenario.. after 12 yrs of Toxic Waste/Fluoridation only 1,276 Children per year with less GENERAL tooth decay
 

(1) ACCORDING to Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust (SUHT) 2009/10 Live Births in Southampton numbered.. 3,224
 

(2) ACCORDING to Prof Stephen Peckham 70% of those 3,224 babies will grow up dental disease free.. that leaves 967 babies who may at some time have a dental disease issues


(3) ACCORDING to PHEs Best Case Scenario.. they found 11% less GENERAL tooth decay when Toxic Waste/Fluoride is added to drinking water... 11% of 967 leaves 106 babies in the first year with less GENERAL ( not dental disease free for life ) tooth decay

 

SOUTHAMPTON'S POSSIBLE 12 YEAR CHURN RATE GIVEN 2009/10 LIVE BIRTHS IN SOUTHAMPTON NUMBERED.. 3,224
 

1 yr.. (1) 3,224 (2) 967 (3) 106

2 yrs.. (1) 6,448 (2) 1,935 (3) 212

3 yrs.. (1) 9,672 (2) 2,902 (3) 319

4 yrs.. (1) 12,896 (2) 3,869 (3) 425

5 yrs.. (1) 16,120 (2) 4,836 (3) 532

6 yrs.. (1) 19,344 (2) 5,804 (3) 638

7 yrs.. (1) 22,568 (2) 6,771 (3) 745

8 yrs.. (1) 25,792 (2) 7,738 (3) 852

9 yrs.. (1) 29,016 (2) 8,705 (3) 957

10 yrs.. (1) 32,240 (2) 9,672 (3) 1,063

11 yrs.. (1) 35,464 (2) 10,640 (3) 1,170

12 yrs.. (1) 38,688 (2) 11,607 (3) 1,276


Using PHEs best case scenario.. after 12 yrs of Toxic Waste/Fluoridation 1,276 Children per year with less GENERAL tooth decay..

Its hardly the 50% Children free of tooth decay promised back in June 2011... 50% of 11,607 equals 5,803 Children tooth decay free?

http://tinyurl.com/l
aqdklh



Bring on the Childsmile programme.. supervised toothbrushing every day.

Nursery toothbrushing saves £6m in dental costs

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-scotland-24
880356



,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Good on the Echo.. I posted the below fluoride NEUROTOXIN news four days ago, an Echo staff member must've read it. - Just one drop more in a tidal wave of evidence against fluoridation FLUORIDE NEWLY IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS TO BRAINS. NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2014. - Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains. FLUORIDE IS NEWLY CLASSIFIED AS A DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXIN BY MEDICAL AUTHORITIES IN THE MARCH 2014 JOURNAL LANCET NEUROLOGY. The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine. The authors write "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations." The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter. DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXINS ARE CAPABLE OF CAUSING WIDESPREAD BRAIN DISORDERS SUCH AS AUTISM, ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, LEARNING DISABILITIES, AND OTHER COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENTS. THE HARM IS OFTEN UNTREATABLE AND PERMANENT. Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries." The authors say it's crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children's brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity. "Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us." PAUL CONNETT, PHD, FAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SAYS, "IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF FLUORIDE AS A DANGEROUS NEUROTOXIN, ADDING MORE FLUORIDE TO AMERICAN'S ALREADY EXCESSIVE INTAKE NO LONGER HAS ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO REDUCE FLUORIDE INTAKE, NOT INCREASE IT." The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers. But The CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposur e and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing. Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains." ,, http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/yoursay/lette rs/11008629.What___s _wrong_with_clean__p ure_water_/[/p][/quote]'' ACCORDING TO an Echo poster called WalkingOnAWires... The 2011 census has a figure of 27,200 children aged 0-9 in Southampton. If we assume 5/9 of those are aged 0-5 then that's about 15,000 children. 15% of 15,000 is 2,250 children who would otherwise have tooth decay http://tinyurl.com/n ma4vs6 I have no reason to doubt him on the 2011 census figure of 27,200 Children... BUT ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR STEPHEN PECKHAM 70% (3/4) of those 27,200 Children do not and may never have any dental disease.. that leaves 1/4, 6,800 Children who may at some time have dental disease issues.. PHE found 11% less GENERAL tooth decay for 12-year-olds when Toxic Waste/Fluoride is added to drinking water (hopefully at some point in time all those 6,800 children will reach the age of 12), So if you extract out the 11% from the 6,800 Children who may or may not get GENERAL tooth decay by the time their 12-year-olds you have PHEs targeted 748 Children If we agree to say ( given variables like inflation ) fluoridation will cost Southampton £80,000 per year.. over a 12-year period you have a sum of £960,000. ( as of 2008, £59,000 per a year/ £471,000 installing plant, http://tinyurl.com/n 4kfyaj ) Given the on going shambles.. at the very least, against the will of Southampton it will cost over £1m to put Toxic waste/fluoride into our drinking water supply Taken all costs into consideration (anything above £2m) to have 11% less (748) 12-year-olds with GENERAL tooth decay lumbers Taxpayers and Southampton with a bill of £2,673 per child.. £21,384 over a 96 year lifetime. ... and who's to say those 748 Children are not the most vulnerable to Toxic Poisoning?.. Fluoridated Birmingham has the highest Infant mortality rate in the UK, worse than in Cuba and on a par with Latvia and Chile. - At the end of the day however you move the figures up or down in favour of fluoridation.. it would be more cost effective to give them all a free lifetime supply of dentures. Thankfully there are better/safer ways to fight tooth decay in low-income families, the Childsmile program has shown that large reductions in tooth decay can be achieved in Children from low-income families by teaching tooth brushing in nursery schools and educating parents on better diets ,,[/p][/quote],, I'll make do with the below figures until I can find out exactly how many Totton, Eastleigh and Southampton 12-year-old's PHE is targeting The below data relates to births recorded by Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust (SUHT) Includes births to mothers with a home postcode within Southampton. does not include births to mothers with a Southampton postcode but the birth occurs within a loction not covered by SUHT 2009/10 Live Births in Southampton shot up to 3,224 from 2,816 in 2006/7 Taking the higher figure of the two, 3,224 x 12 yrs = 38,688 Children (using Prof Peckham's and PHE's stats )... over a 12-year period Southampton will have 1,064 less 12-year old Children with GENERAL tooth decay. If 12 yrs of Fluoridation soul purpose is to reduce 12-year old Children's GENERAL tooth decay by 11% it would be a crime on biblical proportions. - Does that small 11% benefit tail off?.. PHE's report mentions Hip fractures, Kidney stones, Cancers etc, but fails to mention any benefits for Teenagers Fluoridation... Zero statistical benefits for Teenagers or detrimental? ,,[/p][/quote],, PHEs Best Case Scenario.. after 12 yrs of Toxic Waste/Fluoridation only 1,276 Children per year with less GENERAL tooth decay   (1) ACCORDING to Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust (SUHT) 2009/10 Live Births in Southampton numbered.. 3,224   (2) ACCORDING to Prof Stephen Peckham 70% of those 3,224 babies will grow up dental disease free.. that leaves 967 babies who may at some time have a dental disease issues (3) ACCORDING to PHEs Best Case Scenario.. they found 11% less GENERAL tooth decay when Toxic Waste/Fluoride is added to drinking water... 11% of 967 leaves 106 babies in the first year with less GENERAL ( not dental disease free for life ) tooth decay   SOUTHAMPTON'S POSSIBLE 12 YEAR CHURN RATE GIVEN 2009/10 LIVE BIRTHS IN SOUTHAMPTON NUMBERED.. 3,224   1 yr.. (1) 3,224 (2) 967 (3) 106 2 yrs.. (1) 6,448 (2) 1,935 (3) 212 3 yrs.. (1) 9,672 (2) 2,902 (3) 319 4 yrs.. (1) 12,896 (2) 3,869 (3) 425 5 yrs.. (1) 16,120 (2) 4,836 (3) 532 6 yrs.. (1) 19,344 (2) 5,804 (3) 638 7 yrs.. (1) 22,568 (2) 6,771 (3) 745 8 yrs.. (1) 25,792 (2) 7,738 (3) 852 9 yrs.. (1) 29,016 (2) 8,705 (3) 957 10 yrs.. (1) 32,240 (2) 9,672 (3) 1,063 11 yrs.. (1) 35,464 (2) 10,640 (3) 1,170 12 yrs.. (1) 38,688 (2) 11,607 (3) 1,276 Using PHEs best case scenario.. after 12 yrs of Toxic Waste/Fluoridation 1,276 Children per year with less GENERAL tooth decay.. Its hardly the 50% Children free of tooth decay promised back in June 2011... 50% of 11,607 equals 5,803 Children tooth decay free? http://tinyurl.com/l aqdklh Bring on the Childsmile programme.. supervised toothbrushing every day. Nursery toothbrushing saves £6m in dental costs http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-scotland-24 880356 ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Update,,


PHEs Best Case Scenario.. after 12 yrs of Toxic Waste/Fluoridation only an extra 1,276 Children per year with less GENERAL tooth decay.  


(1) ACCORDING to Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust (SUHT) 2009/10 Live Births in Southampton numbered.. 3,224
 

(2) ACCORDING to Prof Stephen Peckham 70% of those 3,224 babies will grow up dental disease free.. that leaves 967 babies who may at some time have dental disease issues


(3) ACCORDING to PHEs Best Case Scenario.. they found 11% less GENERAL tooth decay when Toxic Waste/Fluoride is added to drinking water... 11% of 967 leaves 106 babies in the first year with less GENERAL ( not dental disease free for life ) tooth decay.
 

1 yr.. (1) 3,224 (2) 967 (3) 106

2 yrs.. (1) 6,448 (2) 1,935 (3) 212

3 yrs.. (1) 9,672 (2) 2,902 (3) 319

4 yrs.. (1) 12,896 (2) 3,869 (3) 425

5 yrs.. (1) 16,120 (2) 4,836 (3) 532

6 yrs.. (1) 19,344 (2) 5,804 (3) 638

7 yrs.. (1) 22,568 (2) 6,771 (3) 745

8 yrs.. (1) 25,792 (2) 7,738 (3) 852

9 yrs.. (1) 29,016 (2) 8,705 (3) 957

10 yrs.. (1) 32,240 (2) 9,672 (3) 1,063

11 yrs.. (1) 35,464 (2) 10,640 (3) 1,170

12 yrs.. (1) 38,688 (2) 11,607 (3) 1,276


Using PHEs best case scenario.. after 12 yrs of Toxic Waste/Fluoridation WE WILL HAVE an extra 1,276 Children per year with less GENERAL tooth decay..

THAT's HARDLY the 50% of all 38,688 Children tooth decay free promised back in June 2011.. 50% of 38,688 of equals (PROMISED) an extra 19,344 per year Children tooth decay free.

http://tinyurl.com/l
aqdklh


NO MATTER, ACCORDING to Prof. Stephen Peckham we are already an impressive 70% dental disease free.. 70% of 38,688 would of equalled 27,081 Children tooth decay free.. over only a few years 70% is a superb achievement, among five years tooth decay is the lowest it has ever been


http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=1LglU4uUJ
R4


-

GIVEN ALL THE ABOVE.. As I see it, the only way to improve on Southampton's superb 70% of children do not have any dental disease what's so ever.. is to follow Scotland's lead, Childsmile, supervised Nursery toothbrushing



Nursery toothbrushing saves £6m in dental costs

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-scotland-24
880356



,
Update,, PHEs Best Case Scenario.. after 12 yrs of Toxic Waste/Fluoridation only an extra 1,276 Children per year with less GENERAL tooth decay.   (1) ACCORDING to Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust (SUHT) 2009/10 Live Births in Southampton numbered.. 3,224   (2) ACCORDING to Prof Stephen Peckham 70% of those 3,224 babies will grow up dental disease free.. that leaves 967 babies who may at some time have dental disease issues (3) ACCORDING to PHEs Best Case Scenario.. they found 11% less GENERAL tooth decay when Toxic Waste/Fluoride is added to drinking water... 11% of 967 leaves 106 babies in the first year with less GENERAL ( not dental disease free for life ) tooth decay.   1 yr.. (1) 3,224 (2) 967 (3) 106 2 yrs.. (1) 6,448 (2) 1,935 (3) 212 3 yrs.. (1) 9,672 (2) 2,902 (3) 319 4 yrs.. (1) 12,896 (2) 3,869 (3) 425 5 yrs.. (1) 16,120 (2) 4,836 (3) 532 6 yrs.. (1) 19,344 (2) 5,804 (3) 638 7 yrs.. (1) 22,568 (2) 6,771 (3) 745 8 yrs.. (1) 25,792 (2) 7,738 (3) 852 9 yrs.. (1) 29,016 (2) 8,705 (3) 957 10 yrs.. (1) 32,240 (2) 9,672 (3) 1,063 11 yrs.. (1) 35,464 (2) 10,640 (3) 1,170 12 yrs.. (1) 38,688 (2) 11,607 (3) 1,276 Using PHEs best case scenario.. after 12 yrs of Toxic Waste/Fluoridation WE WILL HAVE an extra 1,276 Children per year with less GENERAL tooth decay.. THAT's HARDLY the 50% of all 38,688 Children tooth decay free promised back in June 2011.. 50% of 38,688 of equals (PROMISED) an extra 19,344 per year Children tooth decay free. http://tinyurl.com/l aqdklh NO MATTER, ACCORDING to Prof. Stephen Peckham we are already an impressive 70% dental disease free.. 70% of 38,688 would of equalled 27,081 Children tooth decay free.. over only a few years 70% is a superb achievement, among five years tooth decay is the lowest it has ever been http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=1LglU4uUJ R4 - GIVEN ALL THE ABOVE.. As I see it, the only way to improve on Southampton's superb 70% of children do not have any dental disease what's so ever.. is to follow Scotland's lead, Childsmile, supervised Nursery toothbrushing Nursery toothbrushing saves £6m in dental costs http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-scotland-24 880356 , Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

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