Fluoride is 'safe and effective' insists Public Health England

Fluoride 'safe and effective' insist health chiefs

Fluoride 'safe and effective' insist health chiefs

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Political reporter

THE organisation charged with putting fluoride into the tap water of tens of thousands of Hampshire residents has said the measure is “safe and effective.”

Public Health England (PHE) defended fluoridation after an article in a respected medical journal suggested fluoride may lead to brain damage and reduced IQ in children.

The authors of the article, published in The Lancet, said fluoride had been newly categorised as a neurotoxin, a type of chemical which has links to brain damage and IQ losses.

That led campaigners against fluoridation to renew calls on PHE to scrap the controversial scheme.

PHE took over responsibility for introducing fluoride into the tap water of 200,000 households in Southampton, Totton, Eastleigh, Netley and Rownhams last year, after the South Central Strategic Health Authority was axed.

While campaigners say the scheme should be scrapped because of concerns over its health impact, the SHA and now PHE have been criticised for not carrying out consultation with the residents who would be affected.

Now, PHE has responded to The Lancet report, with a spokesman saying: “The Lancet has not given advice on water fluoridation. It has merely published a paper in which the authors of the paper suggest that further research be carried out concerning the possibility of a link between fluoride and neurological development.

“In support of that proposition the authors have cited a 2012 paper by Choi et al reporting an analysis of a number of primarily Chinese studies.

“Concerns in those studies relating to a possible link between fluoride and neurotoxicity centre around far higher levels of fluoride exposure than allowed by EU regulations.

“Furthermore, Choi et al reported the presence of deficiencies in the articles they reviewed, limiting the conclusions which could be drawn. Given those circumstances, PHE considers that this limited research does not demonstrate a risk to the neurodevelopment of children in England from levels of fluoride in water seen either in fluoridation schemes or naturally present.

“The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks has concluded that fluoride intake from drinking water at the level occurring in the EU does not appear to hamper children’s neurodevelopment and IQ levels.

“PHE will however, continue to keep the literature on possible neurotoxicity under review.”

The spokesman also added that PHE considered water fluoridation to be a “safe and effective public health measure”, adding that five-and-a-half million people already have fluoride in their water system.

PHE is also locked in a legal tussle with Hampshire County Council and Southampton City Council, who believe the scheme does not legally exist after the SHA failed to hand over key documents to PHE.

PHE said the organisation was still giving “full and careful consideration to all the relevant factors relating to water fluoridation in Southampton and south west Hampshire and is still considering its position in relation to the scheme.”

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:15pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Doug at UKCAF says...

The neurotoxic effects of fluoride are already well established, regardless of how the latest Lancet paper is reviewed. In particular, it is now accepted by a large part of the relevant research community, even if not by PHE, that fluoridation is likely to increase the rate at which residual traces of aluminium in drinking water, left over from conventional water treatment, are able to enter the blood stream from the gut, From there, the aluminium is easily transferred to the brain, where it is a recognised environmental cause of the slow development of dementia.

In a recent highly competent review by Lucija Tomljenovic, at the University of Vancouver, Canada, she wrote (at page 576),
"it is evident that in the presence of fluoride, only trace amounts of Al are needed to produce substantial neuronal injury. Both fluoride and Al when complexed in AlF x appear to be more easily absorbed from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract compared to their ionic forms. In spite of these observations, water fluoridation persists in USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand while most of Europe has abandoned this practice In fluoride-treated water, fluoroaluminates are the prevalent species. The enhanced transport of fluoroaluminates across the GI tract and the BBB , in context to their highly neurotoxic potential, raises significant concerns about the prevalence of these compounds in drinking water of various countries"
(Lucija Tomljenovic. Aluminum and Alzheimer’s Disease: After a Century of Controversy,Is there a Plausible Link? Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 23 (2011) 567–598.)

The conventional procedure when licensing the use of any medicine for public use is to protect the vulnerable by requiring supervised dosage with a safety factor of ten. Even if the recent work on fluoride neurotoxicity referred to evidence from those exposed to higher levels of fluoride than those permitted by the EC, the supposed 'safety margin' for fluoride is still only aound twice that proven to cause visible (let alone more subtle, internal) damage to children. The most recent work indicates that permitting fluoridation with such inadequate regard to public safety is indisputably of sufficient concern to requi8re the immediate application of the Precautionary Principle. PHE's stubborn refusal to acknowledge ALL of the available high-quality evidence against this practice merely exposes the perversity of governement and its Regulator, the MHRA, to concede that Lord Jauncey's decision back in 1983 that fluoridated water is a medicine. It merely empahsises how far from public accountability these irresponsible organisations have become.

,
The neurotoxic effects of fluoride are already well established, regardless of how the latest Lancet paper is reviewed. In particular, it is now accepted by a large part of the relevant research community, even if not by PHE, that fluoridation is likely to increase the rate at which residual traces of aluminium in drinking water, left over from conventional water treatment, are able to enter the blood stream from the gut, From there, the aluminium is easily transferred to the brain, where it is a recognised environmental cause of the slow development of dementia. In a recent highly competent review by Lucija Tomljenovic, at the University of Vancouver, Canada, she wrote (at page 576), "it is evident that in the presence of fluoride, only trace amounts of Al are needed to produce substantial neuronal injury. Both fluoride and Al when complexed in AlF x appear to be more easily absorbed from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract compared to their ionic forms. In spite of these observations, water fluoridation persists in USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand while most of Europe has abandoned this practice [. . .] In fluoride-treated water, fluoroaluminates are the prevalent species. The enhanced transport of fluoroaluminates across the GI tract and the BBB [blood brain barrier], in context to their highly neurotoxic potential, raises significant concerns about the prevalence of these compounds in drinking water of various countries" (Lucija Tomljenovic. Aluminum and Alzheimer’s Disease: After a Century of Controversy,Is there a Plausible Link? Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 23 (2011) 567–598.) The conventional procedure when licensing the use of any medicine for public use is to protect the vulnerable by requiring supervised dosage with a safety factor of ten. Even if the recent work on fluoride neurotoxicity referred to evidence from those exposed to higher levels of fluoride than those permitted by the EC, the supposed 'safety margin' for fluoride is still only aound twice that proven to cause visible (let alone more subtle, internal) damage to children. The most recent work indicates that permitting fluoridation with such inadequate regard to public safety is indisputably of sufficient concern to requi8re the immediate application of the Precautionary Principle. PHE's stubborn refusal to acknowledge ALL of the available high-quality evidence against this practice merely exposes the perversity of governement and its Regulator, the MHRA, to concede that Lord Jauncey's decision back in 1983 that fluoridated water is a medicine. It merely empahsises how far from public accountability these irresponsible organisations have become. , Doug at UKCAF
  • Score: 21

1:56pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Doug at UKCAF wrote:
The neurotoxic effects of fluoride are already well established, regardless of how the latest Lancet paper is reviewed. In particular, it is now accepted by a large part of the relevant research community, even if not by PHE, that fluoridation is likely to increase the rate at which residual traces of aluminium in drinking water, left over from conventional water treatment, are able to enter the blood stream from the gut, From there, the aluminium is easily transferred to the brain, where it is a recognised environmental cause of the slow development of dementia.

In a recent highly competent review by Lucija Tomljenovic, at the University of Vancouver, Canada, she wrote (at page 576),
"it is evident that in the presence of fluoride, only trace amounts of Al are needed to produce substantial neuronal injury. Both fluoride and Al when complexed in AlF x appear to be more easily absorbed from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract compared to their ionic forms. In spite of these observations, water fluoridation persists in USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand while most of Europe has abandoned this practice In fluoride-treated water, fluoroaluminates are the prevalent species. The enhanced transport of fluoroaluminates across the GI tract and the BBB , in context to their highly neurotoxic potential, raises significant concerns about the prevalence of these compounds in drinking water of various countries"
(Lucija Tomljenovic. Aluminum and Alzheimer’s Disease: After a Century of Controversy,Is there a Plausible Link? Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 23 (2011) 567–598.)

The conventional procedure when licensing the use of any medicine for public use is to protect the vulnerable by requiring supervised dosage with a safety factor of ten. Even if the recent work on fluoride neurotoxicity referred to evidence from those exposed to higher levels of fluoride than those permitted by the EC, the supposed 'safety margin' for fluoride is still only aound twice that proven to cause visible (let alone more subtle, internal) damage to children. The most recent work indicates that permitting fluoridation with such inadequate regard to public safety is indisputably of sufficient concern to requi8re the immediate application of the Precautionary Principle. PHE's stubborn refusal to acknowledge ALL of the available high-quality evidence against this practice merely exposes the perversity of governement and its Regulator, the MHRA, to concede that Lord Jauncey's decision back in 1983 that fluoridated water is a medicine. It merely empahsises how far from public accountability these irresponsible organisations have become.

,
Not only is this all true but water fluoridation is against several laws AND in most countries, if anyone besides the government did it, it would be classed as terrorism.
[quote][p][bold]Doug at UKCAF[/bold] wrote: The neurotoxic effects of fluoride are already well established, regardless of how the latest Lancet paper is reviewed. In particular, it is now accepted by a large part of the relevant research community, even if not by PHE, that fluoridation is likely to increase the rate at which residual traces of aluminium in drinking water, left over from conventional water treatment, are able to enter the blood stream from the gut, From there, the aluminium is easily transferred to the brain, where it is a recognised environmental cause of the slow development of dementia. In a recent highly competent review by Lucija Tomljenovic, at the University of Vancouver, Canada, she wrote (at page 576), "it is evident that in the presence of fluoride, only trace amounts of Al are needed to produce substantial neuronal injury. Both fluoride and Al when complexed in AlF x appear to be more easily absorbed from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract compared to their ionic forms. In spite of these observations, water fluoridation persists in USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand while most of Europe has abandoned this practice [. . .] In fluoride-treated water, fluoroaluminates are the prevalent species. The enhanced transport of fluoroaluminates across the GI tract and the BBB [blood brain barrier], in context to their highly neurotoxic potential, raises significant concerns about the prevalence of these compounds in drinking water of various countries" (Lucija Tomljenovic. Aluminum and Alzheimer’s Disease: After a Century of Controversy,Is there a Plausible Link? Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 23 (2011) 567–598.) The conventional procedure when licensing the use of any medicine for public use is to protect the vulnerable by requiring supervised dosage with a safety factor of ten. Even if the recent work on fluoride neurotoxicity referred to evidence from those exposed to higher levels of fluoride than those permitted by the EC, the supposed 'safety margin' for fluoride is still only aound twice that proven to cause visible (let alone more subtle, internal) damage to children. The most recent work indicates that permitting fluoridation with such inadequate regard to public safety is indisputably of sufficient concern to requi8re the immediate application of the Precautionary Principle. PHE's stubborn refusal to acknowledge ALL of the available high-quality evidence against this practice merely exposes the perversity of governement and its Regulator, the MHRA, to concede that Lord Jauncey's decision back in 1983 that fluoridated water is a medicine. It merely empahsises how far from public accountability these irresponsible organisations have become. ,[/p][/quote]Not only is this all true but water fluoridation is against several laws AND in most countries, if anyone besides the government did it, it would be classed as terrorism. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 10

2:03pm Mon 3 Mar 14

charrlee says...

It's very interesting that there is a wealth of knowledge and information, derived from tests and investigations carried out over many years, that highlight certain possible dangers of fluoridation, yet not a scrap of documented evidence from the PHE documenting its safety.

Why should we take the PHE's word for it? What do they care if they are wrong? My guess is that there is some political involvement here.
It's very interesting that there is a wealth of knowledge and information, derived from tests and investigations carried out over many years, that highlight certain possible dangers of fluoridation, yet not a scrap of documented evidence from the PHE documenting its safety. Why should we take the PHE's word for it? What do they care if they are wrong? My guess is that there is some political involvement here. charrlee
  • Score: 12

2:17pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
It's very interesting that there is a wealth of knowledge and information, derived from tests and investigations carried out over many years, that highlight certain possible dangers of fluoridation, yet not a scrap of documented evidence from the PHE documenting its safety.

Why should we take the PHE's word for it? What do they care if they are wrong? My guess is that there is some political involvement here.
Totally agree.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: It's very interesting that there is a wealth of knowledge and information, derived from tests and investigations carried out over many years, that highlight certain possible dangers of fluoridation, yet not a scrap of documented evidence from the PHE documenting its safety. Why should we take the PHE's word for it? What do they care if they are wrong? My guess is that there is some political involvement here.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 4

3:12pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Sarfhampton2 says...

Nutters
Nutters Sarfhampton2
  • Score: -4

3:51pm Mon 3 Mar 14

FoysCornerBoy says...

Doug at UKCAF wrote:
The neurotoxic effects of fluoride are already well established, regardless of how the latest Lancet paper is reviewed. In particular, it is now accepted by a large part of the relevant research community, even if not by PHE, that fluoridation is likely to increase the rate at which residual traces of aluminium in drinking water, left over from conventional water treatment, are able to enter the blood stream from the gut, From there, the aluminium is easily transferred to the brain, where it is a recognised environmental cause of the slow development of dementia.

In a recent highly competent review by Lucija Tomljenovic, at the University of Vancouver, Canada, she wrote (at page 576),
"it is evident that in the presence of fluoride, only trace amounts of Al are needed to produce substantial neuronal injury. Both fluoride and Al when complexed in AlF x appear to be more easily absorbed from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract compared to their ionic forms. In spite of these observations, water fluoridation persists in USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand while most of Europe has abandoned this practice In fluoride-treated water, fluoroaluminates are the prevalent species. The enhanced transport of fluoroaluminates across the GI tract and the BBB , in context to their highly neurotoxic potential, raises significant concerns about the prevalence of these compounds in drinking water of various countries"
(Lucija Tomljenovic. Aluminum and Alzheimer’s Disease: After a Century of Controversy,Is there a Plausible Link? Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 23 (2011) 567–598.)

The conventional procedure when licensing the use of any medicine for public use is to protect the vulnerable by requiring supervised dosage with a safety factor of ten. Even if the recent work on fluoride neurotoxicity referred to evidence from those exposed to higher levels of fluoride than those permitted by the EC, the supposed 'safety margin' for fluoride is still only aound twice that proven to cause visible (let alone more subtle, internal) damage to children. The most recent work indicates that permitting fluoridation with such inadequate regard to public safety is indisputably of sufficient concern to requi8re the immediate application of the Precautionary Principle. PHE's stubborn refusal to acknowledge ALL of the available high-quality evidence against this practice merely exposes the perversity of governement and its Regulator, the MHRA, to concede that Lord Jauncey's decision back in 1983 that fluoridated water is a medicine. It merely empahsises how far from public accountability these irresponsible organisations have become.

,
UKCAF? What exactly is this organisation and who does Doug represent?
[quote][p][bold]Doug at UKCAF[/bold] wrote: The neurotoxic effects of fluoride are already well established, regardless of how the latest Lancet paper is reviewed. In particular, it is now accepted by a large part of the relevant research community, even if not by PHE, that fluoridation is likely to increase the rate at which residual traces of aluminium in drinking water, left over from conventional water treatment, are able to enter the blood stream from the gut, From there, the aluminium is easily transferred to the brain, where it is a recognised environmental cause of the slow development of dementia. In a recent highly competent review by Lucija Tomljenovic, at the University of Vancouver, Canada, she wrote (at page 576), "it is evident that in the presence of fluoride, only trace amounts of Al are needed to produce substantial neuronal injury. Both fluoride and Al when complexed in AlF x appear to be more easily absorbed from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract compared to their ionic forms. In spite of these observations, water fluoridation persists in USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand while most of Europe has abandoned this practice [. . .] In fluoride-treated water, fluoroaluminates are the prevalent species. The enhanced transport of fluoroaluminates across the GI tract and the BBB [blood brain barrier], in context to their highly neurotoxic potential, raises significant concerns about the prevalence of these compounds in drinking water of various countries" (Lucija Tomljenovic. Aluminum and Alzheimer’s Disease: After a Century of Controversy,Is there a Plausible Link? Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 23 (2011) 567–598.) The conventional procedure when licensing the use of any medicine for public use is to protect the vulnerable by requiring supervised dosage with a safety factor of ten. Even if the recent work on fluoride neurotoxicity referred to evidence from those exposed to higher levels of fluoride than those permitted by the EC, the supposed 'safety margin' for fluoride is still only aound twice that proven to cause visible (let alone more subtle, internal) damage to children. The most recent work indicates that permitting fluoridation with such inadequate regard to public safety is indisputably of sufficient concern to requi8re the immediate application of the Precautionary Principle. PHE's stubborn refusal to acknowledge ALL of the available high-quality evidence against this practice merely exposes the perversity of governement and its Regulator, the MHRA, to concede that Lord Jauncey's decision back in 1983 that fluoridated water is a medicine. It merely empahsises how far from public accountability these irresponsible organisations have become. ,[/p][/quote]UKCAF? What exactly is this organisation and who does Doug represent? FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: -1

4:01pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Fluoride has been newly categorised as a neurotoxin and in the Lancet, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world.


PHE's reply further research/tests are needed is at the very least stupid.. everyone knows neurotoxins build up in the body and causes harm.. there are no safe concentrations.

The Echo should make contact with PHEs Scientific advisors on Fluoridation .. The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food Consumer Products and the Environment (COT)

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


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON Professor David Coggon is Chair of COT..

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




,,
Fluoride has been newly categorised as a neurotoxin and in the Lancet, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. PHE's reply further research/tests are needed is at the very least stupid.. everyone knows neurotoxins build up in the body and causes harm.. there are no safe concentrations. The Echo should make contact with PHEs Scientific advisors on Fluoridation .. The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) http://cot.food.gov. uk/ UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON Professor David Coggon is Chair of COT.. 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: 6

4:03pm Mon 3 Mar 14

jwillie6 says...

Every human being has the right to choose via Informed Consent.
It is illegal for a doctor or a dentist to force anyone to take a drug or chemical.
Regarding floride, it should be illegal for the government as well.
The solution for the fluoridation issue is very simple.

SIMPLE SOLUTION:
1. Take the toxic waste fluoride chemical out of the drinking water.
2. It is still legal and available, so those who wish to take it can then put fluoride in their own glass of water.
3. Leave the rest of us out of it, giving everyone the freedom of choice.
PROBLEM SOLVED FOR EVERYONE.
Every human being has the right to choose via Informed Consent. It is illegal for a doctor or a dentist to force anyone to take a drug or chemical. Regarding floride, it should be illegal for the government as well. The solution for the fluoridation issue is very simple. SIMPLE SOLUTION: 1. Take the toxic waste fluoride chemical out of the drinking water. 2. It is still legal and available, so those who wish to take it can then put fluoride in their own glass of water. 3. Leave the rest of us out of it, giving everyone the freedom of choice. PROBLEM SOLVED FOR EVERYONE. jwillie6
  • Score: 17

4:39pm Mon 3 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

charrlee wrote:
It's very interesting that there is a wealth of knowledge and information, derived from tests and investigations carried out over many years, that highlight certain possible dangers of fluoridation, yet not a scrap of documented evidence from the PHE documenting its safety.

Why should we take the PHE's word for it? What do they care if they are wrong? My guess is that there is some political involvement here.
The same PHE who claimed that the majority of Southampton residents are overweight, using the BMI scale as their evidence? I'd rather

Why not just have clean unspoiled water? Works in Scotland! The water up there is so much cleaner and even brushing your teeth you can feel the difference.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: It's very interesting that there is a wealth of knowledge and information, derived from tests and investigations carried out over many years, that highlight certain possible dangers of fluoridation, yet not a scrap of documented evidence from the PHE documenting its safety. Why should we take the PHE's word for it? What do they care if they are wrong? My guess is that there is some political involvement here.[/p][/quote]The same PHE who claimed that the majority of Southampton residents are overweight, using the BMI scale as their evidence? I'd rather Why not just have clean unspoiled water? Works in Scotland! The water up there is so much cleaner and even brushing your teeth you can feel the difference. camerajuan
  • Score: 8

4:56pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Doug at UKCAF says...

Foyscornerboy asks 'UKCAF? What exactly is this organisation and who does Doug represent?' Well, since you ask, I'm a Director of UKCAF, which is UK Councils Against Fluoridation, and we've been fighting fluoridation since 1988
We have around 75 affiated Councils as members (see www.ukcaf.org) I've been involved in aluminium poisoning research, on and off, since 1967, and for 12 years I sat on the Committee on Toxicity's Sub-group investigating the medical effects of the Camelford aluminium sulphate poisoning back in 1988. I resigned in disgust and blew the whistle on it (in British Medical Journal) last year. I have been assisting the world's leading expert in this field for the past dozen years, so I guess that my views represent those of many of the leading scientific research experts in this field, although they, of course, are entirely capable of expressing their own (often quite forceful) views on this quack 'medical' practice.

My wife's inquest, only possible because I knew what to do when she died, was the first to reveal that dementia was one of the worst impacts of that Camelford poisoning, as I warned at the time of the incident.

And she was born and grew up just around the corner from Foy's Corner, in Shirley, I gues UKCAF and I are fairly well placed to comment on this charade. Just check out the medicines and food law that I've explained on our web site and you'll get a clear insight into why I am so opposed to this lethal practice.
Foyscornerboy asks 'UKCAF? What exactly is this organisation and who does Doug represent?' Well, since you ask, I'm a Director of UKCAF, which is UK Councils Against Fluoridation, and we've been fighting fluoridation since 1988 We have around 75 affiated Councils as members (see www.ukcaf.org) I've been involved in aluminium poisoning research, on and off, since 1967, and for 12 years I sat on the Committee on Toxicity's Sub-group investigating the medical effects of the Camelford aluminium sulphate poisoning back in 1988. I resigned in disgust and blew the whistle on it (in British Medical Journal) last year. I have been assisting the world's leading expert in this field for the past dozen years, so I guess that my views represent those of many of the leading scientific research experts in this field, although they, of course, are entirely capable of expressing their own (often quite forceful) views on this quack 'medical' practice. My wife's inquest, only possible because I knew what to do when she died, was the first to reveal that dementia was one of the worst impacts of that Camelford poisoning, as I warned at the time of the incident. And she was born and grew up just around the corner from Foy's Corner, in Shirley, I gues UKCAF and I are fairly well placed to comment on this charade. Just check out the medicines and food law that I've explained on our web site and you'll get a clear insight into why I am so opposed to this lethal practice. Doug at UKCAF
  • Score: 9

5:59pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Doug at UKCAF wrote:
Foyscornerboy asks 'UKCAF? What exactly is this organisation and who does Doug represent?' Well, since you ask, I'm a Director of UKCAF, which is UK Councils Against Fluoridation, and we've been fighting fluoridation since 1988
We have around 75 affiated Councils as members (see www.ukcaf.org) I've been involved in aluminium poisoning research, on and off, since 1967, and for 12 years I sat on the Committee on Toxicity's Sub-group investigating the medical effects of the Camelford aluminium sulphate poisoning back in 1988. I resigned in disgust and blew the whistle on it (in British Medical Journal) last year. I have been assisting the world's leading expert in this field for the past dozen years, so I guess that my views represent those of many of the leading scientific research experts in this field, although they, of course, are entirely capable of expressing their own (often quite forceful) views on this quack 'medical' practice.

My wife's inquest, only possible because I knew what to do when she died, was the first to reveal that dementia was one of the worst impacts of that Camelford poisoning, as I warned at the time of the incident.

And she was born and grew up just around the corner from Foy's Corner, in Shirley, I gues UKCAF and I are fairly well placed to comment on this charade. Just check out the medicines and food law that I've explained on our web site and you'll get a clear insight into why I am so opposed to this lethal practice.
Very interesting that you have been involved "on and off" since 1967.
.
What i therefore cannot understand, is that, with your experience and evidence why are you not listened to. I cannot believe that you are just ignored.
.
The problem is that both sides think that they are right
[quote][p][bold]Doug at UKCAF[/bold] wrote: Foyscornerboy asks 'UKCAF? What exactly is this organisation and who does Doug represent?' Well, since you ask, I'm a Director of UKCAF, which is UK Councils Against Fluoridation, and we've been fighting fluoridation since 1988 We have around 75 affiated Councils as members (see www.ukcaf.org) I've been involved in aluminium poisoning research, on and off, since 1967, and for 12 years I sat on the Committee on Toxicity's Sub-group investigating the medical effects of the Camelford aluminium sulphate poisoning back in 1988. I resigned in disgust and blew the whistle on it (in British Medical Journal) last year. I have been assisting the world's leading expert in this field for the past dozen years, so I guess that my views represent those of many of the leading scientific research experts in this field, although they, of course, are entirely capable of expressing their own (often quite forceful) views on this quack 'medical' practice. My wife's inquest, only possible because I knew what to do when she died, was the first to reveal that dementia was one of the worst impacts of that Camelford poisoning, as I warned at the time of the incident. And she was born and grew up just around the corner from Foy's Corner, in Shirley, I gues UKCAF and I are fairly well placed to comment on this charade. Just check out the medicines and food law that I've explained on our web site and you'll get a clear insight into why I am so opposed to this lethal practice.[/p][/quote]Very interesting that you have been involved "on and off" since 1967. . What i therefore cannot understand, is that, with your experience and evidence why are you not listened to. I cannot believe that you are just ignored. . The problem is that both sides think that they are right Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -3

6:42pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Turtlebay says...

Public Health England (PHE) need to be very careful about leaving their homes.

If you attempt to endanger my children by putting poison in our drinking water, I will personally endanger your lives!
Public Health England (PHE) need to be very careful about leaving their homes. If you attempt to endanger my children by putting poison in our drinking water, I will personally endanger your lives! Turtlebay
  • Score: 7

6:43pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Turtlebay says...

I may be banned for saying that, but it's serious.
I may be banned for saying that, but it's serious. Turtlebay
  • Score: 8

7:20pm Mon 3 Mar 14

FoysCornerBoy says...

Turtlebay wrote:
I may be banned for saying that, but it's serious.
Publicly threatening the lives of government officials is indeed a serious matter. It is also, I suspect, a criminal offence. There are legitimate views on both sides of this important public health debate. For one side to issue threats like this does little to help their cause and makes it even more difficult for those of us who want a free and open debate where all people can have their say without fear of intimidation. The case for a local (p)referendum amongst any potential 'beneficiaries' from the Southampton area (rather than well-meaning individuals like Doug, Director of UK Councils Against Fluoride, who is a councillor in Cumbria) also that much harder to justify.
[quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: I may be banned for saying that, but it's serious.[/p][/quote]Publicly threatening the lives of government officials is indeed a serious matter. It is also, I suspect, a criminal offence. There are legitimate views on both sides of this important public health debate. For one side to issue threats like this does little to help their cause and makes it even more difficult for those of us who want a free and open debate where all people can have their say without fear of intimidation. The case for a local (p)referendum amongst any potential 'beneficiaries' from the Southampton area (rather than well-meaning individuals like Doug, Director of UK Councils Against Fluoride, who is a councillor in Cumbria) also that much harder to justify. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: -3

8:37pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Doug at UKCAF says...

“What i therefore cannot understand, is that, with your experience and evidence why are you not listened to. I cannot believe that you are just ignored.”
Two problems. First, remember that most of these ‘public health experts’ pushing fluoridation are not actually trained scientists. They pretend to understand the ‘science’ that is presented to them by their advisers, blissfully unaware that, by their very nature, all epidemiological ‘surveys’ are severely flawed! And as for the real cutting edge science itself - well, even the leaders in the toxicology field are finding it challenging to keep up with the new, and sometimes dreadful, truths that were unthinkable only a couple of years ago - do you really expect your average dentist to be technologically savvy enough to follow it?
One of the simplest, but most fundamental faults in the pro-fluoridation arguments is that they depend utterly on the false assumption that those magical ‘decayed/missing/f
illed teeth’ data that they use to persuade your Councils to adopt fluoridation are actually virtually meaningless. Real statistics is a firmly shut book written in an utterly incomprehensible foreign language to most of them. Yet they proudly flourish their meaningless numbers, with their absurd war cry that “Your kids have the worst teeth in the country!”.The reality was that, in every single case so far, they didn’t!
The figures that they use to compare your City’s kids - badly, of course - with those in some other more enlightened and fortunate Borough are of such abominably poor reliability that it is actually scientific fraud to compare them in many cases! But hey! - let’s not let some niggling scientific objection get in the way of a good story!
What they are doing, of course, is enthusiastically embracing that traditional bogeyman of all real scientists, confirmation bias. They have been told what to believe about fluoride by generations of earlier ignoramuses who were, in their far-off youth convinced by that Prince of Liars, Edward Bernays, the Public Relations consultant who sold this crazy idea to the gullible American public.
And once convinced, they are reluctant to accept any evidence that suggests that it is time to change their minds - they are only happy when they find something in the literature (which, remember, most are unqualified to understand!) that appears to confirm their beliefs. Then they are happy, comfortable souls, who really do believe the truth of what they have convinced themselves it should be.
The second thing I will tell you is this - people in fact ARE now beginning to listen to me. Although I am not a lawyer, a long career in a related field does enable me to make some ‘educated guesses’ on what the laws on medicine, food and drinks actually mean. And because I have been publishing simple explanations on my web site for over a decade now, the message really is getting through. At least three major High Court cases in different countries are now using my arguments (and even my formal Affidavits) to argue that European Law actually does ban the use of fluorosilicic acid in foods - including most particularly drinking water.
It really is illegal to add this nasty substance to water, or to claim that it prevents tooth decay, and even to prepare food and drinks with it to sell to the public. Behind the scenes there’s a great deal of concern internationally about the implications of this legislation to exporters of foods from fluoridating countries who send their products to the EC. You’ll forgive me if I do not reveal where this is all happening, but Robert Pocock, in Ireland, and I were developing this angle long before the current furore broke out in Cork!
S things really are changing. If you want to see for yourself, just switch on the commercial channels on your TV. If you watch closely you’ll realise that those nice helpful people attempting to persuade you of the amazing benefits of their heavily fluoridated toothpastes somehow seem curiously reluctant to admit now that they actually contain the F-ingredient. It’s become a socially unacceptable F-word instead! The Holy Brand Fluoride has become publicly tarnished,, and the Courts are also now starting to look at the practice with some degree of skepticism. My legal arguments have been having quite dramatic effects in the Courts of both Queensland and now New South Wales, and that’s only the start of the rot.
So don’t despair, there’s a lot of quite sensational stuff on the way, right here on your doorsteps. Go out and tell your Councils to stop sniffing around the edges of the affair and get to the heart of the legal arguments - the European Law and European Court rulings that can kill this practice dead in its tracks. And if you really can’t leave the science alone, check out the link with dementia, and then make your Councillors listen to the real experts. They may not really be all that bothered about some poor kids’ bad teeth, but I guarantee that the threat of dementia facing them and their families will certainly give them a little motivation to put things right.
“What i therefore cannot understand, is that, with your experience and evidence why are you not listened to. I cannot believe that you are just ignored.” Two problems. First, remember that most of these ‘public health experts’ pushing fluoridation are not actually trained scientists. They pretend to understand the ‘science’ that is presented to them by their advisers, blissfully unaware that, by their very nature, all epidemiological ‘surveys’ are severely flawed! And as for the real cutting edge science itself - well, even the leaders in the toxicology field are finding it challenging to keep up with the new, and sometimes dreadful, truths that were unthinkable only a couple of years ago - do you really expect your average dentist to be technologically savvy enough to follow it? One of the simplest, but most fundamental faults in the pro-fluoridation arguments is that they depend utterly on the false assumption that those magical ‘decayed/missing/f illed teeth’ data that they use to persuade your Councils to adopt fluoridation are actually virtually meaningless. Real statistics is a firmly shut book written in an utterly incomprehensible foreign language to most of them. Yet they proudly flourish their meaningless numbers, with their absurd war cry that “Your kids have the worst teeth in the country!”.The reality was that, in every single case so far, they didn’t! The figures that they use to compare your City’s kids - badly, of course - with those in some other more enlightened and fortunate Borough are of such abominably poor reliability that it is actually scientific fraud to compare them in many cases! But hey! - let’s not let some niggling scientific objection get in the way of a good story! What they are doing, of course, is enthusiastically embracing that traditional bogeyman of all real scientists, confirmation bias. They have been told what to believe about fluoride by generations of earlier ignoramuses who were, in their far-off youth convinced by that Prince of Liars, Edward Bernays, the Public Relations consultant who sold this crazy idea to the gullible American public. And once convinced, they are reluctant to accept any evidence that suggests that it is time to change their minds - they are only happy when they find something in the literature (which, remember, most are unqualified to understand!) that appears to confirm their beliefs. Then they are happy, comfortable souls, who really do believe the truth of what they have convinced themselves it should be. The second thing I will tell you is this - people in fact ARE now beginning to listen to me. Although I am not a lawyer, a long career in a related field does enable me to make some ‘educated guesses’ on what the laws on medicine, food and drinks actually mean. And because I have been publishing simple explanations on my web site for over a decade now, the message really is getting through. At least three major High Court cases in different countries are now using my arguments (and even my formal Affidavits) to argue that European Law actually does ban the use of fluorosilicic acid in foods - including most particularly drinking water. It really is illegal to add this nasty substance to water, or to claim that it prevents tooth decay, and even to prepare food and drinks with it to sell to the public. Behind the scenes there’s a great deal of concern internationally about the implications of this legislation to exporters of foods from fluoridating countries who send their products to the EC. You’ll forgive me if I do not reveal where this is all happening, but Robert Pocock, in Ireland, and I were developing this angle long before the current furore broke out in Cork! S things really are changing. If you want to see for yourself, just switch on the commercial channels on your TV. If you watch closely you’ll realise that those nice helpful people attempting to persuade you of the amazing benefits of their heavily fluoridated toothpastes somehow seem curiously reluctant to admit now that they actually contain the F-ingredient. It’s become a socially unacceptable F-word instead! The Holy Brand Fluoride has become publicly tarnished,, and the Courts are also now starting to look at the practice with some degree of skepticism. My legal arguments have been having quite dramatic effects in the Courts of both Queensland and now New South Wales, and that’s only the start of the rot. So don’t despair, there’s a lot of quite sensational stuff on the way, right here on your doorsteps. Go out and tell your Councils to stop sniffing around the edges of the affair and get to the heart of the legal arguments - the European Law and European Court rulings that can kill this practice dead in its tracks. And if you really can’t leave the science alone, check out the link with dementia, and then make your Councillors listen to the real experts. They may not really be all that bothered about some poor kids’ bad teeth, but I guarantee that the threat of dementia facing them and their families will certainly give them a little motivation to put things right. Doug at UKCAF
  • Score: 6

9:15pm Mon 3 Mar 14

tall pete says...

Teaching children to brush their teeth, not to drink fizzy drinks etc ,would be preferable than putting toxic waste in our water supply. Mass medication to dumb us down ,well its about time the masses woke up and stood up for their rights. god you`re not even supposed to swallow toothpaste with fluoride in it !
Teaching children to brush their teeth, not to drink fizzy drinks etc ,would be preferable than putting toxic waste in our water supply. Mass medication to dumb us down ,well its about time the masses woke up and stood up for their rights. god you`re not even supposed to swallow toothpaste with fluoride in it ! tall pete
  • Score: 10

12:25am Tue 4 Mar 14

Ryan Cannard says...

@Doug what's going on with the Dental Milk scheme it was reported that a study from Newcastle University put a spanner in the works and the scheme was on hold pending an investigation. The article appeared in the Blackpool Gazette but was removed within hours of being published. No mention from the (PHE) about any of it but the scheme seems to be trundling on. The (PHE) members are not as medically qualified as people would think. Richard Gleave, Chief Operating Officer,He has a first degree in Geography from Oxford University and an MSc in Health Economics and Management from Sheffield University. Tony Vickers-Byrne, Director of Human Resources,Tony has extensive senior level experience of human resources management. Professor John Newton, Chief Knowledge Officer/defector, has twenty years of experience as a consultant in public health with a strong track record in academic, professional service and senior management roles. To name but a few. I supose the (PHE) will ignore these six peer reviewed journals showing that fluoride ingestion reduces a developing childs IQ.

1a) Rocha-Amador D, et al. (2007). Decreased intelligence in children and exposure to fluoride and arsenic in drinking water. Cadernos de Saude Publica 23(Suppl 4):S579-87.

1b) Wang SX, et al. (2007). Arsenic and fluoride exposure in drinking water: children's IQ and growth in Shanyin county, Shanxi province, China. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(4):643-7.

1c) Trivedi MH, et al. (2007). Effect of high fluoride water on intelligence of school children in India. Fluoride 40(3):178-183.

1d) Bera I, et al. (2007). Neurofunctional effects of developmental sodium fluoride exposure in rats. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences 11(4):211-24.

1e) Chioca LR, et al. (2007). Subchronic fluoride intake induces impairment in habituation and active avoidance tasks in rats. European Journal of Pharmacology Oct 25;

1f) Choi A, Grandjean P. (2007). Potentials for developmental fluoride neurotoxicity. XXVII Conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research, October 9-12, 2007, Beijing, China.
@Doug what's going on with the Dental Milk scheme it was reported that a study from Newcastle University put a spanner in the works and the scheme was on hold pending an investigation. The article appeared in the Blackpool Gazette but was removed within hours of being published. No mention from the (PHE) about any of it but the scheme seems to be trundling on. The (PHE) members are not as medically qualified as people would think. Richard Gleave, Chief Operating Officer,He has a first degree in Geography from Oxford University and an MSc in Health Economics and Management from Sheffield University. Tony Vickers-Byrne, Director of Human Resources,Tony has extensive senior level experience of human resources management. Professor John Newton, Chief Knowledge Officer/defector, has twenty years of experience as a consultant in public health with a strong track record in academic, professional service and senior management roles. To name but a few. I supose the (PHE) will ignore these six peer reviewed journals showing that fluoride ingestion reduces a developing childs IQ. 1a) Rocha-Amador D, et al. (2007). Decreased intelligence in children and exposure to fluoride and arsenic in drinking water. Cadernos de Saude Publica 23(Suppl 4):S579-87. 1b) Wang SX, et al. (2007). Arsenic and fluoride exposure in drinking water: children's IQ and growth in Shanyin county, Shanxi province, China. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(4):643-7. 1c) Trivedi MH, et al. (2007). Effect of high fluoride water on intelligence of school children in India. Fluoride 40(3):178-183. 1d) Bera I, et al. (2007). Neurofunctional effects of developmental sodium fluoride exposure in rats. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences 11(4):211-24. 1e) Chioca LR, et al. (2007). Subchronic fluoride intake induces impairment in habituation and active avoidance tasks in rats. European Journal of Pharmacology Oct 25; [Epub ahead of print] 1f) Choi A, Grandjean P. (2007). Potentials for developmental fluoride neurotoxicity. XXVII Conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research, October 9-12, 2007, Beijing, China. Ryan Cannard
  • Score: 3

6:09am Tue 4 Mar 14

Turtlebay says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
I may be banned for saying that, but it's serious.
Publicly threatening the lives of government officials is indeed a serious matter. It is also, I suspect, a criminal offence. There are legitimate views on both sides of this important public health debate. For one side to issue threats like this does little to help their cause and makes it even more difficult for those of us who want a free and open debate where all people can have their say without fear of intimidation. The case for a local (p)referendum amongst any potential 'beneficiaries' from the Southampton area (rather than well-meaning individuals like Doug, Director of UK Councils Against Fluoride, who is a councillor in Cumbria) also that much harder to justify.
So is it less threatening or more threatening than their threat to poison our drinking water?
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: I may be banned for saying that, but it's serious.[/p][/quote]Publicly threatening the lives of government officials is indeed a serious matter. It is also, I suspect, a criminal offence. There are legitimate views on both sides of this important public health debate. For one side to issue threats like this does little to help their cause and makes it even more difficult for those of us who want a free and open debate where all people can have their say without fear of intimidation. The case for a local (p)referendum amongst any potential 'beneficiaries' from the Southampton area (rather than well-meaning individuals like Doug, Director of UK Councils Against Fluoride, who is a councillor in Cumbria) also that much harder to justify.[/p][/quote]So is it less threatening or more threatening than their threat to poison our drinking water? Turtlebay
  • Score: 5

9:25am Tue 4 Mar 14

FoysCornerBoy says...

Turtlebay wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
I may be banned for saying that, but it's serious.
Publicly threatening the lives of government officials is indeed a serious matter. It is also, I suspect, a criminal offence. There are legitimate views on both sides of this important public health debate. For one side to issue threats like this does little to help their cause and makes it even more difficult for those of us who want a free and open debate where all people can have their say without fear of intimidation. The case for a local (p)referendum amongst any potential 'beneficiaries' from the Southampton area (rather than well-meaning individuals like Doug, Director of UK Councils Against Fluoride, who is a councillor in Cumbria) also that much harder to justify.
So is it less threatening or more threatening than their threat to poison our drinking water?
But they're not. The anti-fluoride lobby can't have it both ways: mass medication on the one hand and mass poisoning on the other. The arguments advanced by many in the 'poisoning' camp are largely subjective and play on popular emotion rather than scientific reason.

Chlorine is a poison and I am very glad that safe doses of this 'toxin' have been added to our public water supply to prevent us getting horrible diseases like cholera. I do not drive but I am expected to tolerate a 'poisoned' atmosphere caused by pollution from car emissions. The food industry - largely unregulated - put all sorts of unpleasant things (including poisonous additives) in foodstuffs.

Frankly I don't buy the argument that the government's public health officials have entered into some crazy conspiracy with the chemical industry in order to poison the general population. You may disagree with them but that does not justify people like you making personal threats against them for only doing their job.
[quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: I may be banned for saying that, but it's serious.[/p][/quote]Publicly threatening the lives of government officials is indeed a serious matter. It is also, I suspect, a criminal offence. There are legitimate views on both sides of this important public health debate. For one side to issue threats like this does little to help their cause and makes it even more difficult for those of us who want a free and open debate where all people can have their say without fear of intimidation. The case for a local (p)referendum amongst any potential 'beneficiaries' from the Southampton area (rather than well-meaning individuals like Doug, Director of UK Councils Against Fluoride, who is a councillor in Cumbria) also that much harder to justify.[/p][/quote]So is it less threatening or more threatening than their threat to poison our drinking water?[/p][/quote]But they're not. The anti-fluoride lobby can't have it both ways: mass medication on the one hand and mass poisoning on the other. The arguments advanced by many in the 'poisoning' camp are largely subjective and play on popular emotion rather than scientific reason. Chlorine is a poison and I am very glad that safe doses of this 'toxin' have been added to our public water supply to prevent us getting horrible diseases like cholera. I do not drive but I am expected to tolerate a 'poisoned' atmosphere caused by pollution from car emissions. The food industry - largely unregulated - put all sorts of unpleasant things (including poisonous additives) in foodstuffs. Frankly I don't buy the argument that the government's public health officials have entered into some crazy conspiracy with the chemical industry in order to poison the general population. You may disagree with them but that does not justify people like you making personal threats against them for only doing their job. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: -6

1:36pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
I may be banned for saying that, but it's serious.
Publicly threatening the lives of government officials is indeed a serious matter. It is also, I suspect, a criminal offence. There are legitimate views on both sides of this important public health debate. For one side to issue threats like this does little to help their cause and makes it even more difficult for those of us who want a free and open debate where all people can have their say without fear of intimidation. The case for a local (p)referendum amongst any potential 'beneficiaries' from the Southampton area (rather than well-meaning individuals like Doug, Director of UK Councils Against Fluoride, who is a councillor in Cumbria) also that much harder to justify.
So is it less threatening or more threatening than their threat to poison our drinking water?
But they're not. The anti-fluoride lobby can't have it both ways: mass medication on the one hand and mass poisoning on the other. The arguments advanced by many in the 'poisoning' camp are largely subjective and play on popular emotion rather than scientific reason.

Chlorine is a poison and I am very glad that safe doses of this 'toxin' have been added to our public water supply to prevent us getting horrible diseases like cholera. I do not drive but I am expected to tolerate a 'poisoned' atmosphere caused by pollution from car emissions. The food industry - largely unregulated - put all sorts of unpleasant things (including poisonous additives) in foodstuffs.

Frankly I don't buy the argument that the government's public health officials have entered into some crazy conspiracy with the chemical industry in order to poison the general population. You may disagree with them but that does not justify people like you making personal threats against them for only doing their job.
It's a neurotoxin being used as a drug, as for the chlorine, it evaporates out of the water quite quickly, hence chlorinated swimming pools need it to be constantly pumped into them to keep the chlorine levels up, the fact it evaporates so quickly from water is why tap water doesn't taste like pool water.
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: I may be banned for saying that, but it's serious.[/p][/quote]Publicly threatening the lives of government officials is indeed a serious matter. It is also, I suspect, a criminal offence. There are legitimate views on both sides of this important public health debate. For one side to issue threats like this does little to help their cause and makes it even more difficult for those of us who want a free and open debate where all people can have their say without fear of intimidation. The case for a local (p)referendum amongst any potential 'beneficiaries' from the Southampton area (rather than well-meaning individuals like Doug, Director of UK Councils Against Fluoride, who is a councillor in Cumbria) also that much harder to justify.[/p][/quote]So is it less threatening or more threatening than their threat to poison our drinking water?[/p][/quote]But they're not. The anti-fluoride lobby can't have it both ways: mass medication on the one hand and mass poisoning on the other. The arguments advanced by many in the 'poisoning' camp are largely subjective and play on popular emotion rather than scientific reason. Chlorine is a poison and I am very glad that safe doses of this 'toxin' have been added to our public water supply to prevent us getting horrible diseases like cholera. I do not drive but I am expected to tolerate a 'poisoned' atmosphere caused by pollution from car emissions. The food industry - largely unregulated - put all sorts of unpleasant things (including poisonous additives) in foodstuffs. Frankly I don't buy the argument that the government's public health officials have entered into some crazy conspiracy with the chemical industry in order to poison the general population. You may disagree with them but that does not justify people like you making personal threats against them for only doing their job.[/p][/quote]It's a neurotoxin being used as a drug, as for the chlorine, it evaporates out of the water quite quickly, hence chlorinated swimming pools need it to be constantly pumped into them to keep the chlorine levels up, the fact it evaporates so quickly from water is why tap water doesn't taste like pool water. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:50pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Joy Warren says...

“@Doug what's going on with the Dental Milk scheme it was reported that a study from Newcastle University put a spanner in the works and the scheme was on hold pending an investigation.”

I contacted a friendly Blackpool Borough Councillor a couple of days ago on the issue of Blackpool 'dental' milk. He replied saying that the intended programme is on hold but that he would let me know as soon as there is any movement.

If there was too much fluoride in the urine of the children who were included in the research this could mean one of two things: either (based on the 50% excreted/50% retained theory), the children were ingesting twice as much fluoride as they were excreting OR (and forgive me for being cynical about this), PHE realises that not enough is being retained in the body if they have woken up to the fact that fluoride in the presence of calcium would not bioaccumulate and that what was being excreted was more or less the total amount being ingested. I'm waiting for the Blackpool issue to be resolved before I contact the other boroughs in the North of England who are currently providing dental milk.

Perhaps the Borrow Foundation is trying to roll out the dental milk programme throughout the North of England because they have twigged that from 20th January 2014, it's illegal to manufacture food (and tap water) which contains hexafluorosilicic acid. It's strangely legal though to add sodium fluoride to milk and to salt. I suspect that fluoride has been included in EU Regulation 1925/2006, Annex I in order to please the fluoridated salt pushers in Germany, France and Switzerland. It also pleases The Borrow foundation and their quirky dental milk programme.

And now you're going to ask the question: "If fluoridated water is illegal, why is nothing being done about it?" Well, we're running as fast as we can.
“@Doug what's going on with the Dental Milk scheme it was reported that a study from Newcastle University put a spanner in the works and the scheme was on hold pending an investigation.” I contacted a friendly Blackpool Borough Councillor a couple of days ago on the issue of Blackpool 'dental' milk. He replied saying that the intended programme is on hold but that he would let me know as soon as there is any movement. If there was too much fluoride in the urine of the children who were included in the research this could mean one of two things: either (based on the 50% excreted/50% retained theory), the children were ingesting twice as much fluoride as they were excreting OR (and forgive me for being cynical about this), PHE realises that not enough is being retained in the body if they have woken up to the fact that fluoride in the presence of calcium would not bioaccumulate and that what was being excreted was more or less the total amount being ingested. I'm waiting for the Blackpool issue to be resolved before I contact the other boroughs in the North of England who are currently providing dental milk. Perhaps the Borrow Foundation is trying to roll out the dental milk programme throughout the North of England because they have twigged that from 20th January 2014, it's illegal to manufacture food (and tap water) which contains hexafluorosilicic acid. It's strangely legal though to add sodium fluoride to milk and to salt. I suspect that fluoride has been included in EU Regulation 1925/2006, Annex I in order to please the fluoridated salt pushers in Germany, France and Switzerland. It also pleases The Borrow foundation and their quirky dental milk programme. And now you're going to ask the question: "If fluoridated water is illegal, why is nothing being done about it?" Well, we're running as fast as we can. Joy Warren
  • Score: 1

6:06pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Turtlebay says...

Water was fluoridated in large parts of the Netherlands from 1960 to 1973, at which point the Supreme Court of the Netherlands declared fluoridation of drinking water unauthorized. The Dutch Court decided that authorities had no legal basis for adding chemicals to drinking water if they also did not improve safety. It was also stated as support that consumers cannot choose a different tap water provider. Drinking water has not been fluoridated in any part of the Netherlands since 1973.

In Ryan v. Attorney General (1965), the Supreme Court of Ireland held that water fluoridation did not infringe the plaintiff's right to bodily integrity. However, the court found that such a right to bodily integrity did exist, despite the fact that it was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of Ireland, thus establishing the doctrine of unenumerated rights in Irish constitutional law.
Water was fluoridated in large parts of the Netherlands from 1960 to 1973, at which point the Supreme Court of the Netherlands declared fluoridation of drinking water unauthorized.[60] The Dutch Court decided that authorities had no legal basis for adding chemicals to drinking water if they also did not improve safety. It was also stated as support that consumers cannot choose a different tap water provider.[61] Drinking water has not been fluoridated in any part of the Netherlands since 1973. In Ryan v. Attorney General (1965), the Supreme Court of Ireland held that water fluoridation did not infringe the plaintiff's right to bodily integrity.[62] However, the court found that such a right to bodily integrity did exist, despite the fact that it was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of Ireland, thus establishing the doctrine of unenumerated rights in Irish constitutional law. Turtlebay
  • Score: 2

6:07pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Ryan Cannard says...

@Joy...Thank you...So if it wasn't for the Newcastle study the (PHE) would be none the wiser and would of continued with the scheme which would of resulted in over fluoridating children...
@Joy...Thank you...So if it wasn't for the Newcastle study the (PHE) would be none the wiser and would of continued with the scheme which would of resulted in over fluoridating children... Ryan Cannard
  • Score: 0

4:56pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
I may be banned for saying that, but it's serious.
Publicly threatening the lives of government officials is indeed a serious matter. It is also, I suspect, a criminal offence. There are legitimate views on both sides of this important public health debate. For one side to issue threats like this does little to help their cause and makes it even more difficult for those of us who want a free and open debate where all people can have their say without fear of intimidation. The case for a local (p)referendum amongst any potential 'beneficiaries' from the Southampton area (rather than well-meaning individuals like Doug, Director of UK Councils Against Fluoride, who is a councillor in Cumbria) also that much harder to justify.
So is it less threatening or more threatening than their threat to poison our drinking water?
But they're not. The anti-fluoride lobby can't have it both ways: mass medication on the one hand and mass poisoning on the other. The arguments advanced by many in the 'poisoning' camp are largely subjective and play on popular emotion rather than scientific reason.

Chlorine is a poison and I am very glad that safe doses of this 'toxin' have been added to our public water supply to prevent us getting horrible diseases like cholera. I do not drive but I am expected to tolerate a 'poisoned' atmosphere caused by pollution from car emissions. The food industry - largely unregulated - put all sorts of unpleasant things (including poisonous additives) in foodstuffs.

Frankly I don't buy the argument that the government's public health officials have entered into some crazy conspiracy with the chemical industry in order to poison the general population. You may disagree with them but that does not justify people like you making personal threats against them for only doing their job.
It's a neurotoxin being used as a drug, as for the chlorine, it evaporates out of the water quite quickly, hence chlorinated swimming pools need it to be constantly pumped into them to keep the chlorine levels up, the fact it evaporates so quickly from water is why tap water doesn't taste like pool water.
,,

Ginger cyclist says... Fluoride is a neurotoxin being used as a drug.


whats more Fluoride comes with instructions found on a box of selective lawn weed killer.. WARNING! using more than 1.5 mg per litre will kill your lawn.


THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.. Fluoridation is the term used to describe the dosing of water supplies to bring the fluoride level up to 1 milligram per litre as a public health measure intended to prevent tooth decay. The maximum permitted value of fluoride in drinking water is 1.5mg/l (milligrammes per litre).

-

http://dwi.defra.gov
.uk/consumers/advice
-leaflets/fluoride.p
df

-

If Fluoride was a medicine for public use it would have a built in safe dose factor of ten to protect the vulnerable.. i.e 10x less than 1.5 mg per litre

The fact is Fluoride hasn't been tested like a pharmaceutical drug, (anywhere in the world) they go through rigorous laboratory, animal and clinical trials.. phase one, two, three and four human testing over many years by scientists.. physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, among others.




,,
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: I may be banned for saying that, but it's serious.[/p][/quote]Publicly threatening the lives of government officials is indeed a serious matter. It is also, I suspect, a criminal offence. There are legitimate views on both sides of this important public health debate. For one side to issue threats like this does little to help their cause and makes it even more difficult for those of us who want a free and open debate where all people can have their say without fear of intimidation. The case for a local (p)referendum amongst any potential 'beneficiaries' from the Southampton area (rather than well-meaning individuals like Doug, Director of UK Councils Against Fluoride, who is a councillor in Cumbria) also that much harder to justify.[/p][/quote]So is it less threatening or more threatening than their threat to poison our drinking water?[/p][/quote]But they're not. The anti-fluoride lobby can't have it both ways: mass medication on the one hand and mass poisoning on the other. The arguments advanced by many in the 'poisoning' camp are largely subjective and play on popular emotion rather than scientific reason. Chlorine is a poison and I am very glad that safe doses of this 'toxin' have been added to our public water supply to prevent us getting horrible diseases like cholera. I do not drive but I am expected to tolerate a 'poisoned' atmosphere caused by pollution from car emissions. The food industry - largely unregulated - put all sorts of unpleasant things (including poisonous additives) in foodstuffs. Frankly I don't buy the argument that the government's public health officials have entered into some crazy conspiracy with the chemical industry in order to poison the general population. You may disagree with them but that does not justify people like you making personal threats against them for only doing their job.[/p][/quote]It's a neurotoxin being used as a drug, as for the chlorine, it evaporates out of the water quite quickly, hence chlorinated swimming pools need it to be constantly pumped into them to keep the chlorine levels up, the fact it evaporates so quickly from water is why tap water doesn't taste like pool water.[/p][/quote],, Ginger cyclist says... Fluoride is a neurotoxin being used as a drug. whats more Fluoride comes with instructions found on a box of selective lawn weed killer.. WARNING! using more than 1.5 mg per litre will kill your lawn. THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.. Fluoridation is the term used to describe the dosing of water supplies to bring the fluoride level up to 1 milligram per litre as a public health measure intended to prevent tooth decay. The maximum permitted value of fluoride in drinking water is 1.5mg/l (milligrammes per litre). - http://dwi.defra.gov .uk/consumers/advice -leaflets/fluoride.p df - If Fluoride was a medicine for public use it would have a built in safe dose factor of ten to protect the vulnerable.. i.e 10x less than 1.5 mg per litre The fact is Fluoride hasn't been tested like a pharmaceutical drug, (anywhere in the world) they go through rigorous laboratory, animal and clinical trials.. phase one, two, three and four human testing over many years by scientists.. physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, among others. ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 10

9:33pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
I may be banned for saying that, but it's serious.
Publicly threatening the lives of government officials is indeed a serious matter. It is also, I suspect, a criminal offence. There are legitimate views on both sides of this important public health debate. For one side to issue threats like this does little to help their cause and makes it even more difficult for those of us who want a free and open debate where all people can have their say without fear of intimidation. The case for a local (p)referendum amongst any potential 'beneficiaries' from the Southampton area (rather than well-meaning individuals like Doug, Director of UK Councils Against Fluoride, who is a councillor in Cumbria) also that much harder to justify.
So is it less threatening or more threatening than their threat to poison our drinking water?
But they're not. The anti-fluoride lobby can't have it both ways: mass medication on the one hand and mass poisoning on the other. The arguments advanced by many in the 'poisoning' camp are largely subjective and play on popular emotion rather than scientific reason.

Chlorine is a poison and I am very glad that safe doses of this 'toxin' have been added to our public water supply to prevent us getting horrible diseases like cholera. I do not drive but I am expected to tolerate a 'poisoned' atmosphere caused by pollution from car emissions. The food industry - largely unregulated - put all sorts of unpleasant things (including poisonous additives) in foodstuffs.

Frankly I don't buy the argument that the government's public health officials have entered into some crazy conspiracy with the chemical industry in order to poison the general population. You may disagree with them but that does not justify people like you making personal threats against them for only doing their job.
It's a neurotoxin being used as a drug, as for the chlorine, it evaporates out of the water quite quickly, hence chlorinated swimming pools need it to be constantly pumped into them to keep the chlorine levels up, the fact it evaporates so quickly from water is why tap water doesn't taste like pool water.
,,

Ginger cyclist says... Fluoride is a neurotoxin being used as a drug.


whats more Fluoride comes with instructions found on a box of selective lawn weed killer.. WARNING! using more than 1.5 mg per litre will kill your lawn.


THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.. Fluoridation is the term used to describe the dosing of water supplies to bring the fluoride level up to 1 milligram per litre as a public health measure intended to prevent tooth decay. The maximum permitted value of fluoride in drinking water is 1.5mg/l (milligrammes per litre).

-

http://dwi.defra.gov

.uk/consumers/advice

-leaflets/fluoride.p

df

-

If Fluoride was a medicine for public use it would have a built in safe dose factor of ten to protect the vulnerable.. i.e 10x less than 1.5 mg per litre

The fact is Fluoride hasn't been tested like a pharmaceutical drug, (anywhere in the world) they go through rigorous laboratory, animal and clinical trials.. phase one, two, three and four human testing over many years by scientists.. physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, among others.




,,
,,


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 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: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: I may be banned for saying that, but it's serious.[/p][/quote]Publicly threatening the lives of government officials is indeed a serious matter. It is also, I suspect, a criminal offence. There are legitimate views on both sides of this important public health debate. For one side to issue threats like this does little to help their cause and makes it even more difficult for those of us who want a free and open debate where all people can have their say without fear of intimidation. The case for a local (p)referendum amongst any potential 'beneficiaries' from the Southampton area (rather than well-meaning individuals like Doug, Director of UK Councils Against Fluoride, who is a councillor in Cumbria) also that much harder to justify.[/p][/quote]So is it less threatening or more threatening than their threat to poison our drinking water?[/p][/quote]But they're not. The anti-fluoride lobby can't have it both ways: mass medication on the one hand and mass poisoning on the other. The arguments advanced by many in the 'poisoning' camp are largely subjective and play on popular emotion rather than scientific reason. Chlorine is a poison and I am very glad that safe doses of this 'toxin' have been added to our public water supply to prevent us getting horrible diseases like cholera. I do not drive but I am expected to tolerate a 'poisoned' atmosphere caused by pollution from car emissions. The food industry - largely unregulated - put all sorts of unpleasant things (including poisonous additives) in foodstuffs. Frankly I don't buy the argument that the government's public health officials have entered into some crazy conspiracy with the chemical industry in order to poison the general population. You may disagree with them but that does not justify people like you making personal threats against them for only doing their job.[/p][/quote]It's a neurotoxin being used as a drug, as for the chlorine, it evaporates out of the water quite quickly, hence chlorinated swimming pools need it to be constantly pumped into them to keep the chlorine levels up, the fact it evaporates so quickly from water is why tap water doesn't taste like pool water.[/p][/quote],, Ginger cyclist says... Fluoride is a neurotoxin being used as a drug. whats more Fluoride comes with instructions found on a box of selective lawn weed killer.. WARNING! using more than 1.5 mg per litre will kill your lawn. THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.. Fluoridation is the term used to describe the dosing of water supplies to bring the fluoride level up to 1 milligram per litre as a public health measure intended to prevent tooth decay. The maximum permitted value of fluoride in drinking water is 1.5mg/l (milligrammes per litre). - http://dwi.defra.gov .uk/consumers/advice -leaflets/fluoride.p df - If Fluoride was a medicine for public use it would have a built in safe dose factor of ten to protect the vulnerable.. i.e 10x less than 1.5 mg per litre The fact is Fluoride hasn't been tested like a pharmaceutical drug, (anywhere in the world) they go through rigorous laboratory, animal and clinical trials.. phase one, two, three and four human testing over many years by scientists.. physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, among others. ,,[/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 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

6:00am Fri 28 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
I may be banned for saying that, but it's serious.
Publicly threatening the lives of government officials is indeed a serious matter. It is also, I suspect, a criminal offence. There are legitimate views on both sides of this important public health debate. For one side to issue threats like this does little to help their cause and makes it even more difficult for those of us who want a free and open debate where all people can have their say without fear of intimidation. The case for a local (p)referendum amongst any potential 'beneficiaries' from the Southampton area (rather than well-meaning individuals like Doug, Director of UK Councils Against Fluoride, who is a councillor in Cumbria) also that much harder to justify.
So is it less threatening or more threatening than their threat to poison our drinking water?
But they're not. The anti-fluoride lobby can't have it both ways: mass medication on the one hand and mass poisoning on the other. The arguments advanced by many in the 'poisoning' camp are largely subjective and play on popular emotion rather than scientific reason.

Chlorine is a poison and I am very glad that safe doses of this 'toxin' have been added to our public water supply to prevent us getting horrible diseases like cholera. I do not drive but I am expected to tolerate a 'poisoned' atmosphere caused by pollution from car emissions. The food industry - largely unregulated - put all sorts of unpleasant things (including poisonous additives) in foodstuffs.

Frankly I don't buy the argument that the government's public health officials have entered into some crazy conspiracy with the chemical industry in order to poison the general population. You may disagree with them but that does not justify people like you making personal threats against them for only doing their job.
It's a neurotoxin being used as a drug, as for the chlorine, it evaporates out of the water quite quickly, hence chlorinated swimming pools need it to be constantly pumped into them to keep the chlorine levels up, the fact it evaporates so quickly from water is why tap water doesn't taste like pool water.
,,

Ginger cyclist says... Fluoride is a neurotoxin being used as a drug.


whats more Fluoride comes with instructions found on a box of selective lawn weed killer.. WARNING! using more than 1.5 mg per litre will kill your lawn.


THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.. Fluoridation is the term used to describe the dosing of water supplies to bring the fluoride level up to 1 milligram per litre as a public health measure intended to prevent tooth decay. The maximum permitted value of fluoride in drinking water is 1.5mg/l (milligrammes per litre).

-

http://dwi.defra.gov


.uk/consumers/advice


-leaflets/fluoride.p


df

-

If Fluoride was a medicine for public use it would have a built in safe dose factor of ten to protect the vulnerable.. i.e 10x less than 1.5 mg per litre

The fact is Fluoride hasn't been tested like a pharmaceutical drug, (anywhere in the world) they go through rigorous laboratory, animal and clinical trials.. phase one, two, three and four human testing over many years by scientists.. physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, among others.




,,
,,


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 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: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: I may be banned for saying that, but it's serious.[/p][/quote]Publicly threatening the lives of government officials is indeed a serious matter. It is also, I suspect, a criminal offence. There are legitimate views on both sides of this important public health debate. For one side to issue threats like this does little to help their cause and makes it even more difficult for those of us who want a free and open debate where all people can have their say without fear of intimidation. The case for a local (p)referendum amongst any potential 'beneficiaries' from the Southampton area (rather than well-meaning individuals like Doug, Director of UK Councils Against Fluoride, who is a councillor in Cumbria) also that much harder to justify.[/p][/quote]So is it less threatening or more threatening than their threat to poison our drinking water?[/p][/quote]But they're not. The anti-fluoride lobby can't have it both ways: mass medication on the one hand and mass poisoning on the other. The arguments advanced by many in the 'poisoning' camp are largely subjective and play on popular emotion rather than scientific reason. Chlorine is a poison and I am very glad that safe doses of this 'toxin' have been added to our public water supply to prevent us getting horrible diseases like cholera. I do not drive but I am expected to tolerate a 'poisoned' atmosphere caused by pollution from car emissions. The food industry - largely unregulated - put all sorts of unpleasant things (including poisonous additives) in foodstuffs. Frankly I don't buy the argument that the government's public health officials have entered into some crazy conspiracy with the chemical industry in order to poison the general population. You may disagree with them but that does not justify people like you making personal threats against them for only doing their job.[/p][/quote]It's a neurotoxin being used as a drug, as for the chlorine, it evaporates out of the water quite quickly, hence chlorinated swimming pools need it to be constantly pumped into them to keep the chlorine levels up, the fact it evaporates so quickly from water is why tap water doesn't taste like pool water.[/p][/quote],, Ginger cyclist says... Fluoride is a neurotoxin being used as a drug. whats more Fluoride comes with instructions found on a box of selective lawn weed killer.. WARNING! using more than 1.5 mg per litre will kill your lawn. THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.. Fluoridation is the term used to describe the dosing of water supplies to bring the fluoride level up to 1 milligram per litre as a public health measure intended to prevent tooth decay. The maximum permitted value of fluoride in drinking water is 1.5mg/l (milligrammes per litre). - http://dwi.defra.gov .uk/consumers/advice -leaflets/fluoride.p df - If Fluoride was a medicine for public use it would have a built in safe dose factor of ten to protect the vulnerable.. i.e 10x less than 1.5 mg per litre The fact is Fluoride hasn't been tested like a pharmaceutical drug, (anywhere in the world) they go through rigorous laboratory, animal and clinical trials.. phase one, two, three and four human testing over many years by scientists.. physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, among others. ,,[/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 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

8:39pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
I may be banned for saying that, but it's serious.
Publicly threatening the lives of government officials is indeed a serious matter. It is also, I suspect, a criminal offence. There are legitimate views on both sides of this important public health debate. For one side to issue threats like this does little to help their cause and makes it even more difficult for those of us who want a free and open debate where all people can have their say without fear of intimidation. The case for a local (p)referendum amongst any potential 'beneficiaries' from the Southampton area (rather than well-meaning individuals like Doug, Director of UK Councils Against Fluoride, who is a councillor in Cumbria) also that much harder to justify.
So is it less threatening or more threatening than their threat to poison our drinking water?
But they're not. The anti-fluoride lobby can't have it both ways: mass medication on the one hand and mass poisoning on the other. The arguments advanced by many in the 'poisoning' camp are largely subjective and play on popular emotion rather than scientific reason.

Chlorine is a poison and I am very glad that safe doses of this 'toxin' have been added to our public water supply to prevent us getting horrible diseases like cholera. I do not drive but I am expected to tolerate a 'poisoned' atmosphere caused by pollution from car emissions. The food industry - largely unregulated - put all sorts of unpleasant things (including poisonous additives) in foodstuffs.

Frankly I don't buy the argument that the government's public health officials have entered into some crazy conspiracy with the chemical industry in order to poison the general population. You may disagree with them but that does not justify people like you making personal threats against them for only doing their job.
It's a neurotoxin being used as a drug, as for the chlorine, it evaporates out of the water quite quickly, hence chlorinated swimming pools need it to be constantly pumped into them to keep the chlorine levels up, the fact it evaporates so quickly from water is why tap water doesn't taste like pool water.
,,

Ginger cyclist says... Fluoride is a neurotoxin being used as a drug.


whats more Fluoride comes with instructions found on a box of selective lawn weed killer.. WARNING! using more than 1.5 mg per litre will kill your lawn.


THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.. Fluoridation is the term used to describe the dosing of water supplies to bring the fluoride level up to 1 milligram per litre as a public health measure intended to prevent tooth decay. The maximum permitted value of fluoride in drinking water is 1.5mg/l (milligrammes per litre).

-

http://dwi.defra.gov



.uk/consumers/advice



-leaflets/fluoride.p



df

-

If Fluoride was a medicine for public use it would have a built in safe dose factor of ten to protect the vulnerable.. i.e 10x less than 1.5 mg per litre

The fact is Fluoride hasn't been tested like a pharmaceutical drug, (anywhere in the world) they go through rigorous laboratory, animal and clinical trials.. phase one, two, three and four human testing over many years by scientists.. physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, among others.




,,
,,


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 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/Fluoridaition 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/Fluoridaition 1,276 Children per year with less GENERAL tooth decay..



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

http://tinyurl.com/l
aqdklh


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: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: I may be banned for saying that, but it's serious.[/p][/quote]Publicly threatening the lives of government officials is indeed a serious matter. It is also, I suspect, a criminal offence. There are legitimate views on both sides of this important public health debate. For one side to issue threats like this does little to help their cause and makes it even more difficult for those of us who want a free and open debate where all people can have their say without fear of intimidation. The case for a local (p)referendum amongst any potential 'beneficiaries' from the Southampton area (rather than well-meaning individuals like Doug, Director of UK Councils Against Fluoride, who is a councillor in Cumbria) also that much harder to justify.[/p][/quote]So is it less threatening or more threatening than their threat to poison our drinking water?[/p][/quote]But they're not. The anti-fluoride lobby can't have it both ways: mass medication on the one hand and mass poisoning on the other. The arguments advanced by many in the 'poisoning' camp are largely subjective and play on popular emotion rather than scientific reason. Chlorine is a poison and I am very glad that safe doses of this 'toxin' have been added to our public water supply to prevent us getting horrible diseases like cholera. I do not drive but I am expected to tolerate a 'poisoned' atmosphere caused by pollution from car emissions. The food industry - largely unregulated - put all sorts of unpleasant things (including poisonous additives) in foodstuffs. Frankly I don't buy the argument that the government's public health officials have entered into some crazy conspiracy with the chemical industry in order to poison the general population. You may disagree with them but that does not justify people like you making personal threats against them for only doing their job.[/p][/quote]It's a neurotoxin being used as a drug, as for the chlorine, it evaporates out of the water quite quickly, hence chlorinated swimming pools need it to be constantly pumped into them to keep the chlorine levels up, the fact it evaporates so quickly from water is why tap water doesn't taste like pool water.[/p][/quote],, Ginger cyclist says... Fluoride is a neurotoxin being used as a drug. whats more Fluoride comes with instructions found on a box of selective lawn weed killer.. WARNING! using more than 1.5 mg per litre will kill your lawn. THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.. Fluoridation is the term used to describe the dosing of water supplies to bring the fluoride level up to 1 milligram per litre as a public health measure intended to prevent tooth decay. The maximum permitted value of fluoride in drinking water is 1.5mg/l (milligrammes per litre). - http://dwi.defra.gov .uk/consumers/advice -leaflets/fluoride.p df - If Fluoride was a medicine for public use it would have a built in safe dose factor of ten to protect the vulnerable.. i.e 10x less than 1.5 mg per litre The fact is Fluoride hasn't been tested like a pharmaceutical drug, (anywhere in the world) they go through rigorous laboratory, animal and clinical trials.. phase one, two, three and four human testing over many years by scientists.. physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, among others. ,,[/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 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/Fluoridaition 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/Fluoridaition 1,276 Children per year with less GENERAL tooth decay.. Its hardly the 50% promised back in June 2011... 50% of 11,607 equals 5,803 Children per year ? http://tinyurl.com/l aqdklh 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

9:13pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
I may be banned for saying that, but it's serious.
Publicly threatening the lives of government officials is indeed a serious matter. It is also, I suspect, a criminal offence. There are legitimate views on both sides of this important public health debate. For one side to issue threats like this does little to help their cause and makes it even more difficult for those of us who want a free and open debate where all people can have their say without fear of intimidation. The case for a local (p)referendum amongst any potential 'beneficiaries' from the Southampton area (rather than well-meaning individuals like Doug, Director of UK Councils Against Fluoride, who is a councillor in Cumbria) also that much harder to justify.
So is it less threatening or more threatening than their threat to poison our drinking water?
But they're not. The anti-fluoride lobby can't have it both ways: mass medication on the one hand and mass poisoning on the other. The arguments advanced by many in the 'poisoning' camp are largely subjective and play on popular emotion rather than scientific reason.

Chlorine is a poison and I am very glad that safe doses of this 'toxin' have been added to our public water supply to prevent us getting horrible diseases like cholera. I do not drive but I am expected to tolerate a 'poisoned' atmosphere caused by pollution from car emissions. The food industry - largely unregulated - put all sorts of unpleasant things (including poisonous additives) in foodstuffs.

Frankly I don't buy the argument that the government's public health officials have entered into some crazy conspiracy with the chemical industry in order to poison the general population. You may disagree with them but that does not justify people like you making personal threats against them for only doing their job.
It's a neurotoxin being used as a drug, as for the chlorine, it evaporates out of the water quite quickly, hence chlorinated swimming pools need it to be constantly pumped into them to keep the chlorine levels up, the fact it evaporates so quickly from water is why tap water doesn't taste like pool water.
,,

Ginger cyclist says... Fluoride is a neurotoxin being used as a drug.


whats more Fluoride comes with instructions found on a box of selective lawn weed killer.. WARNING! using more than 1.5 mg per litre will kill your lawn.


THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.. Fluoridation is the term used to describe the dosing of water supplies to bring the fluoride level up to 1 milligram per litre as a public health measure intended to prevent tooth decay. The maximum permitted value of fluoride in drinking water is 1.5mg/l (milligrammes per litre).

-

http://dwi.defra.gov




.uk/consumers/advice




-leaflets/fluoride.p




df

-

If Fluoride was a medicine for public use it would have a built in safe dose factor of ten to protect the vulnerable.. i.e 10x less than 1.5 mg per litre

The fact is Fluoride hasn't been tested like a pharmaceutical drug, (anywhere in the world) they go through rigorous laboratory, animal and clinical trials.. phase one, two, three and four human testing over many years by scientists.. physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, among others.




,,
,,


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 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/Fluoridaition 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/Fluoridaition 1,276 Children per year with less GENERAL tooth decay..



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

http://tinyurl.com/l

aqdklh


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





,
,,


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: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: I may be banned for saying that, but it's serious.[/p][/quote]Publicly threatening the lives of government officials is indeed a serious matter. It is also, I suspect, a criminal offence. There are legitimate views on both sides of this important public health debate. For one side to issue threats like this does little to help their cause and makes it even more difficult for those of us who want a free and open debate where all people can have their say without fear of intimidation. The case for a local (p)referendum amongst any potential 'beneficiaries' from the Southampton area (rather than well-meaning individuals like Doug, Director of UK Councils Against Fluoride, who is a councillor in Cumbria) also that much harder to justify.[/p][/quote]So is it less threatening or more threatening than their threat to poison our drinking water?[/p][/quote]But they're not. The anti-fluoride lobby can't have it both ways: mass medication on the one hand and mass poisoning on the other. The arguments advanced by many in the 'poisoning' camp are largely subjective and play on popular emotion rather than scientific reason. Chlorine is a poison and I am very glad that safe doses of this 'toxin' have been added to our public water supply to prevent us getting horrible diseases like cholera. I do not drive but I am expected to tolerate a 'poisoned' atmosphere caused by pollution from car emissions. The food industry - largely unregulated - put all sorts of unpleasant things (including poisonous additives) in foodstuffs. Frankly I don't buy the argument that the government's public health officials have entered into some crazy conspiracy with the chemical industry in order to poison the general population. You may disagree with them but that does not justify people like you making personal threats against them for only doing their job.[/p][/quote]It's a neurotoxin being used as a drug, as for the chlorine, it evaporates out of the water quite quickly, hence chlorinated swimming pools need it to be constantly pumped into them to keep the chlorine levels up, the fact it evaporates so quickly from water is why tap water doesn't taste like pool water.[/p][/quote],, Ginger cyclist says... Fluoride is a neurotoxin being used as a drug. whats more Fluoride comes with instructions found on a box of selective lawn weed killer.. WARNING! using more than 1.5 mg per litre will kill your lawn. THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.. Fluoridation is the term used to describe the dosing of water supplies to bring the fluoride level up to 1 milligram per litre as a public health measure intended to prevent tooth decay. The maximum permitted value of fluoride in drinking water is 1.5mg/l (milligrammes per litre). - http://dwi.defra.gov .uk/consumers/advice -leaflets/fluoride.p df - If Fluoride was a medicine for public use it would have a built in safe dose factor of ten to protect the vulnerable.. i.e 10x less than 1.5 mg per litre The fact is Fluoride hasn't been tested like a pharmaceutical drug, (anywhere in the world) they go through rigorous laboratory, animal and clinical trials.. phase one, two, three and four human testing over many years by scientists.. physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, among others. ,,[/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 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/Fluoridaition 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/Fluoridaition 1,276 Children per year with less GENERAL tooth decay.. Its hardly the 50% promised back in June 2011... 50% of 11,607 equals 5,803 Children per year ? http://tinyurl.com/l aqdklh 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],, 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

2:42pm 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 Southampton's Children 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 Southampton's Children 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: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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