500 toddlers in Southampton have teeth removed under general anaesthetic a year, say Public Health England

Daily Echo: PUBLIC ANGER: Marching against fluoridation through Southampton city centre in May 2013 PUBLIC ANGER: Marching against fluoridation through Southampton city centre in May 2013

“YOU will stay safe and your children’s teeth will be healthier.”

That is the message from the people driving controversial moves to add fluoride to water supplies as it was revealed hundreds of Southampton toddlers are having their teeth pulled out in hospital because of decay.

More than 500 city youngsters a year, aged one to four, are undergoing operations under general anaesthetic to have teeth extracted, while yet more are having needles in the gum to have them pulled out in dentist chairs, according to Public Health England (PHE).

But the organisation says that number could be almost halved every year if fluoride is added to the tap water of tens of thousands of Hampshire homes.

It comes as a legal row continues over who will decide whether the chemical is introduced in Southampton and parts of Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.

Campaigners fear fluoride comes with serious health risks and say there is no evidence it can help lower the number of extractions among children.

But PHE, which yesterday released a major report into fluoridation in England, insists evidence shows the chemical is safe and will improve the dental health of youngsters in Southampton.

PHE chief knowledge officer Professor John Newton told the Daily Echo: “The case for fluoridation in Southampton is still very strong and we can quantify that.

“The report provides further reassurance that water fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure.”

‘Benefits’ Prof Newton once spearheaded the case for fluoridation in Hampshire water supplies when he was the regional director of public health for the nowdisbanded South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA).

And he is hopeful the plan can be resurrected.

“No decision has been taken about proceeding or not,” he said.

“We would like to get on with it and we are working as hard as possible. The benefits of fluoridation go on for decades so it is more important to get it right than to get it done quickly.

“The report today is based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective and it will have worthwhile benefits for the people of Southampton.”

As previously reported, the future of the scheme has been in doubt ever since the SHA was axed.

Work is going on behind the scenes to say on whether it gets the goahead.

In other parts of the country, local authorities can run consultations and then apply to the Secretary of State for the chemical to be added.

Southampton City Council leader Simon Letts has said he is a supporter of the idea – but that it should be decided by a local referendum.

PHE yesterday released the first national report on the matter, finding that there is no evidence the chemical leads to an increased risk of diseases such as cancer.

On average, 15 per cent fewer five-year-olds have tooth decay that needed intervention in fluoridated areas, the authors said.

And when deprivation and ethnicity – both important factors for dental health – are taken into account, this figure rises to 28 per cent fewer cases of tooth decay.

Meanwhile there are 11 per cent fewer 12-year-olds with tooth decay in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas.

‘Limitations’ This figure rose to 21 per cent when deprivation and ethnicity were taken into account, the authors said.

And in areas which participate in the water adjustment scheme, there are 45 per cent fewer hospital admissions for tooth decay among children aged one to four.

In England, 14 out of 152 local authorities have water fluoridation schemes in place – covering six million people.

In these areas the level of fluoride in the water is adjusted to one part per million. In the latest report, experts measured the dental health of five-year-olds with baby teeth and 12-year-olds with adult teeth from fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas.

Professor Stephen Peckham, from the campaign group Hampshire Against Fluoridation, said the report had “limitations”

and that a more thorough study was needed.

“I am pretty clear that there is no good evidence to show that water fluoridation reduces the number of tooth extractions for dental decay.

“The report overstates the benefits of fluoridation.

“A lot of the evidence is inconclusive and demands the need for much better studies.”

Comments (58)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:45am Wed 26 Mar 14

Bagamn says...

If I am paying Southern Water for fresh water, are they breaking their agreement with me as they are not supplying pure water. I am in a position where I have to take lots of medication, how do we know that fluoride will not react to my medication? Southern Water could find themselves at the wrong end of Court actions if they insist on going ahead with this. Who wants brown teeth anyhow.
If I am paying Southern Water for fresh water, are they breaking their agreement with me as they are not supplying pure water. I am in a position where I have to take lots of medication, how do we know that fluoride will not react to my medication? Southern Water could find themselves at the wrong end of Court actions if they insist on going ahead with this. Who wants brown teeth anyhow. Bagamn
  • Score: 15

10:54am Wed 26 Mar 14

Kingontail says...

scumbag parents
scumbag parents Kingontail
  • Score: 8

12:04pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Mary80 says...

If parents dont want their young kids to have bad teeth STOP BUYING THEM SWEETS for crying out loud, its 2014 surely people know that sugars rot your teeth it shouldn't take people to TELL you. Everytime i go to a shop i see hordes of parents buying their kids endless streams of sweets and fizzy drink and i stand there thinking "you are causing this entire problem".I am also angry that adverts constantly lie and say "hey kids Nutella its full of calcium" when no its full of fat and sugar and a very small amount of calcium. Even fruit juice has high levels of sugar 31 grams per 250 ml's is taking the p!ss. The answer is simple EDUCATE people to cut out fat and sugar and young kids shouldnt have sweets anyway their teeth are obviously more at risk.

I despair at the goverment trying hard to add this crap yet they should be making sure parents get their kids to eat less sugar and brush their teeth twice a day. Adding fluride to water is a terribly lazy way to fix the problem
If parents dont want their young kids to have bad teeth STOP BUYING THEM SWEETS for crying out loud, its 2014 surely people know that sugars rot your teeth it shouldn't take people to TELL you. Everytime i go to a shop i see hordes of parents buying their kids endless streams of sweets and fizzy drink and i stand there thinking "you are causing this entire problem".I am also angry that adverts constantly lie and say "hey kids Nutella its full of calcium" when no its full of fat and sugar and a very small amount of calcium. Even fruit juice has high levels of sugar 31 grams per 250 ml's is taking the p!ss. The answer is simple EDUCATE people to cut out fat and sugar and young kids shouldnt have sweets anyway their teeth are obviously more at risk. I despair at the goverment trying hard to add this crap yet they should be making sure parents get their kids to eat less sugar and brush their teeth twice a day. Adding fluride to water is a terribly lazy way to fix the problem Mary80
  • Score: 19

12:09pm Wed 26 Mar 14

WotMeWorry says...

Bagamn wrote:
If I am paying Southern Water for fresh water, are they breaking their agreement with me as they are not supplying pure water. I am in a position where I have to take lots of medication, how do we know that fluoride will not react to my medication? Southern Water could find themselves at the wrong end of Court actions if they insist on going ahead with this. Who wants brown teeth anyhow.
You do know that you are not provided with 'pure' water? There are numerous things already added to the water supply to ensure you don't contract a number of diseases.
[quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: If I am paying Southern Water for fresh water, are they breaking their agreement with me as they are not supplying pure water. I am in a position where I have to take lots of medication, how do we know that fluoride will not react to my medication? Southern Water could find themselves at the wrong end of Court actions if they insist on going ahead with this. Who wants brown teeth anyhow.[/p][/quote]You do know that you are not provided with 'pure' water? There are numerous things already added to the water supply to ensure you don't contract a number of diseases. WotMeWorry
  • Score: 3

12:12pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Bagamn says...

Most of the wartime children have still got their teeth. This is because sweets were on ration and so was sugar. There were few sickly sweet cakes and pastries on the market due to the rationing. Although our lives were under constant threat, it made sure our teeth were safe. Who can remember using soot of salt to clean their teeth?
Most of the wartime children have still got their teeth. This is because sweets were on ration and so was sugar. There were few sickly sweet cakes and pastries on the market due to the rationing. Although our lives were under constant threat, it made sure our teeth were safe. Who can remember using soot of salt to clean their teeth? Bagamn
  • Score: 10

12:13pm Wed 26 Mar 14

SilvanDryad says...

This is down to parents who do not take their responsibilities seriously.
Every day you can see kids who are old enough to walk with stuffed into buggies and clutching babies’ bottles full of energy drinks and fizzy drinks; school kids eating a Mars bar or crisps for their breakfast because the parents can't be bothered to get up in time to provide a bowl of cereal, or toast. I bet they have no toothbrush, let alone toothpaste and are not even registered with a dentist.
This is down to parents who do not take their responsibilities seriously. Every day you can see kids who are old enough to walk with stuffed into buggies and clutching babies’ bottles full of energy drinks and fizzy drinks; school kids eating a Mars bar or crisps for their breakfast because the parents can't be bothered to get up in time to provide a bowl of cereal, or toast. I bet they have no toothbrush, let alone toothpaste and are not even registered with a dentist. SilvanDryad
  • Score: 16

12:14pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Bagamn wrote:
If I am paying Southern Water for fresh water, are they breaking their agreement with me as they are not supplying pure water. I am in a position where I have to take lots of medication, how do we know that fluoride will not react to my medication? Southern Water could find themselves at the wrong end of Court actions if they insist on going ahead with this. Who wants brown teeth anyhow.
Well evidently there are already 6m people who are using fluoridated water at the moment ...... so about 10% of the UK population.
.
Now there doesnt seem to be much of an uproar from them or even suffering from side effects or indeed having an issue with their medication.
.
So i would assume (?) that all is ok
[quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: If I am paying Southern Water for fresh water, are they breaking their agreement with me as they are not supplying pure water. I am in a position where I have to take lots of medication, how do we know that fluoride will not react to my medication? Southern Water could find themselves at the wrong end of Court actions if they insist on going ahead with this. Who wants brown teeth anyhow.[/p][/quote]Well evidently there are already 6m people who are using fluoridated water at the moment ...... so about 10% of the UK population. . Now there doesnt seem to be much of an uproar from them or even suffering from side effects or indeed having an issue with their medication. . So i would assume (?) that all is ok Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -7

12:31pm Wed 26 Mar 14

SilvanDryad says...

This is evidence of neglect.
The NSPCC says: The UK definition of neglect is:
“The persistent failure to meet a child’s basic physical and/or psychological
needs, likely to result in the serious impairment of the child’s health or
development." That can include having to have avoidable operations.
Take the children into care.
This is evidence of neglect. The NSPCC says: The UK definition of neglect is: “The persistent failure to meet a child’s basic physical and/or psychological needs, likely to result in the serious impairment of the child’s health or development." That can include having to have avoidable operations. Take the children into care. SilvanDryad
  • Score: 14

12:32pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

"based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.
"based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 11

12:35pm Wed 26 Mar 14

WotMeWorry says...

WotMeWorry wrote:
Bagamn wrote: If I am paying Southern Water for fresh water, are they breaking their agreement with me as they are not supplying pure water. I am in a position where I have to take lots of medication, how do we know that fluoride will not react to my medication? Southern Water could find themselves at the wrong end of Court actions if they insist on going ahead with this. Who wants brown teeth anyhow.
You do know that you are not provided with 'pure' water? There are numerous things already added to the water supply to ensure you don't contract a number of diseases.
Crikey, not sure why my post merits a -3. I was purely stating a fact and not making any judgement on the value of flouridisation or indeed whether or not it should be implemented. Different chemicals are added to the water supply dependent upon the source of the water e.g. rivers, reservoirs etc. Bacteria and other pathogens are removed using chlorination and the pH is also balanced, all to ensure that the water is fit for human consumption. Whether or not something else should be added to improve (or not) dental health was not the point I was making.
[quote][p][bold]WotMeWorry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: If I am paying Southern Water for fresh water, are they breaking their agreement with me as they are not supplying pure water. I am in a position where I have to take lots of medication, how do we know that fluoride will not react to my medication? Southern Water could find themselves at the wrong end of Court actions if they insist on going ahead with this. Who wants brown teeth anyhow.[/p][/quote]You do know that you are not provided with 'pure' water? There are numerous things already added to the water supply to ensure you don't contract a number of diseases.[/p][/quote]Crikey, not sure why my post merits a -3. I was purely stating a fact and not making any judgement on the value of flouridisation or indeed whether or not it should be implemented. Different chemicals are added to the water supply dependent upon the source of the water e.g. rivers, reservoirs etc. Bacteria and other pathogens are removed using chlorination and the pH is also balanced, all to ensure that the water is fit for human consumption. Whether or not something else should be added to improve (or not) dental health was not the point I was making. WotMeWorry
  • Score: 6

1:30pm Wed 26 Mar 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Unfortunately, this debate's being dominated by people who don't fully understand the issue. That's not intended to be rude to anyone. But just typing 'fluoride' into a search engine, reading the first couple of scaremongering articles which appear, and thinking that you've done 'research', just isn't enough. You have to read the source articles of the scientific studies and I would urge anyone who wants to comment on this to read the actual study by Public Health England before making a comment. It can be found here:
https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/296329
/Water_fluoridation_
health_monitoring_fo
r_England.pdf
Unfortunately, this debate's being dominated by people who don't fully understand the issue. That's not intended to be rude to anyone. But just typing 'fluoride' into a search engine, reading the first couple of scaremongering articles which appear, and thinking that you've done 'research', just isn't enough. You have to read the source articles of the scientific studies and I would urge anyone who wants to comment on this to read the actual study by Public Health England before making a comment. It can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/296329 /Water_fluoridation_ health_monitoring_fo r_England.pdf WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 3

1:37pm Wed 26 Mar 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

SilvanDryad wrote:
This is down to parents who do not take their responsibilities seriously.
Every day you can see kids who are old enough to walk with stuffed into buggies and clutching babies’ bottles full of energy drinks and fizzy drinks; school kids eating a Mars bar or crisps for their breakfast because the parents can't be bothered to get up in time to provide a bowl of cereal, or toast. I bet they have no toothbrush, let alone toothpaste and are not even registered with a dentist.
You could be exactly right about this. If you are, is it then right that these children should suffer terribly from their parents' neglect without being helped? I'm not defending the parents one bit. What I am saying is that the most vulnerable ones in this, the children whom fluoride will help and which does no harm to anyone else, shouldn't be deprived of it when it can make such a difference to their lives. They don't have a voice in this, but they're the ones we need to think of.
[quote][p][bold]SilvanDryad[/bold] wrote: This is down to parents who do not take their responsibilities seriously. Every day you can see kids who are old enough to walk with stuffed into buggies and clutching babies’ bottles full of energy drinks and fizzy drinks; school kids eating a Mars bar or crisps for their breakfast because the parents can't be bothered to get up in time to provide a bowl of cereal, or toast. I bet they have no toothbrush, let alone toothpaste and are not even registered with a dentist.[/p][/quote]You could be exactly right about this. If you are, is it then right that these children should suffer terribly from their parents' neglect without being helped? I'm not defending the parents one bit. What I am saying is that the most vulnerable ones in this, the children whom fluoride will help and which does no harm to anyone else, shouldn't be deprived of it when it can make such a difference to their lives. They don't have a voice in this, but they're the ones we need to think of. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Wed 26 Mar 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
"based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.
We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: "based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.[/p][/quote]We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England? WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 2

1:55pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Tenderhearts wife says...

prosecute the parents of these children and stop wasting money trying to force feed us chemicals that we do not want. I have all my own teeth at 49, my father and mother have their own teeth at 74 and 76 yrs old and so do my grown up children. The problem is idleness and neglect on the part of the parents and so should be dealt with as such.
prosecute the parents of these children and stop wasting money trying to force feed us chemicals that we do not want. I have all my own teeth at 49, my father and mother have their own teeth at 74 and 76 yrs old and so do my grown up children. The problem is idleness and neglect on the part of the parents and so should be dealt with as such. Tenderhearts wife
  • Score: 7

2:10pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
"based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.
We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?
India has high levels of natural Fluoride in it's water, before i started to DE-Fluoridate it's water, they also had extremely high rates of dental AND skeletal Fluorosis, Fluoride IS a highly toxic substance, it can cause symptoms of Fluoride poisoning(such as gastrointestinal discomfort) at doses LOWER than what they are trying to force on us, also, mass medication is ILLEGAL and goes AGAINST the human rights act and no, I didn't read the whole report, I know not to take the word of government lackeys seriously, aso, the substance they would be using to "Fluoridate" our water, is a highly toxic AND etremely corrosive, industrial waste.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: "based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.[/p][/quote]We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?[/p][/quote]India has high levels of natural Fluoride in it's water, before i started to DE-Fluoridate it's water, they also had extremely high rates of dental AND skeletal Fluorosis, Fluoride IS a highly toxic substance, it can cause symptoms of Fluoride poisoning(such as gastrointestinal discomfort) at doses LOWER than what they are trying to force on us, also, mass medication is ILLEGAL and goes AGAINST the human rights act and no, I didn't read the whole report, I know not to take the word of government lackeys seriously, aso, the substance they would be using to "Fluoridate" our water, is a highly toxic AND etremely corrosive, industrial waste. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

2:13pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Tenderhearts wife wrote:
prosecute the parents of these children and stop wasting money trying to force feed us chemicals that we do not want. I have all my own teeth at 49, my father and mother have their own teeth at 74 and 76 yrs old and so do my grown up children. The problem is idleness and neglect on the part of the parents and so should be dealt with as such.
Exactly, the only reason I don't have all of my own teeth is because I smashed 2 of them in a crash.
[quote][p][bold]Tenderhearts wife[/bold] wrote: prosecute the parents of these children and stop wasting money trying to force feed us chemicals that we do not want. I have all my own teeth at 49, my father and mother have their own teeth at 74 and 76 yrs old and so do my grown up children. The problem is idleness and neglect on the part of the parents and so should be dealt with as such.[/p][/quote]Exactly, the only reason I don't have all of my own teeth is because I smashed 2 of them in a crash. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -5

2:18pm Wed 26 Mar 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
"based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.
We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?
India has high levels of natural Fluoride in it's water, before i started to DE-Fluoridate it's water, they also had extremely high rates of dental AND skeletal Fluorosis, Fluoride IS a highly toxic substance, it can cause symptoms of Fluoride poisoning(such as gastrointestinal discomfort) at doses LOWER than what they are trying to force on us, also, mass medication is ILLEGAL and goes AGAINST the human rights act and no, I didn't read the whole report, I know not to take the word of government lackeys seriously, aso, the substance they would be using to "Fluoridate" our water, is a highly toxic AND etremely corrosive, industrial waste.
So, Ginger. You haven't read the report, or the evidence it presents, but you still think you're qualified to pass judgement on it. You are sure you are right, because you believe government scientists are all involved in a conspiracy to poison us all. And despite my trying to explain twice, you still haven't grasped what 'poison' means. If you can't even be bothered to read the thing you're saying is rubbish, what makes you think anyone should listen to you?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: "based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.[/p][/quote]We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?[/p][/quote]India has high levels of natural Fluoride in it's water, before i started to DE-Fluoridate it's water, they also had extremely high rates of dental AND skeletal Fluorosis, Fluoride IS a highly toxic substance, it can cause symptoms of Fluoride poisoning(such as gastrointestinal discomfort) at doses LOWER than what they are trying to force on us, also, mass medication is ILLEGAL and goes AGAINST the human rights act and no, I didn't read the whole report, I know not to take the word of government lackeys seriously, aso, the substance they would be using to "Fluoridate" our water, is a highly toxic AND etremely corrosive, industrial waste.[/p][/quote]So, Ginger. You haven't read the report, or the evidence it presents, but you still think you're qualified to pass judgement on it. You are sure you are right, because you believe government scientists are all involved in a conspiracy to poison us all. And despite my trying to explain twice, you still haven't grasped what 'poison' means. If you can't even be bothered to read the thing you're saying is rubbish, what makes you think anyone should listen to you? WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: -3

2:26pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Kingontail says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
"based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.
We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?
India has high levels of natural Fluoride in it's water, before i started to DE-Fluoridate it's water, they also had extremely high rates of dental AND skeletal Fluorosis, Fluoride IS a highly toxic substance, it can cause symptoms of Fluoride poisoning(such as gastrointestinal discomfort) at doses LOWER than what they are trying to force on us, also, mass medication is ILLEGAL and goes AGAINST the human rights act and no, I didn't read the whole report, I know not to take the word of government lackeys seriously, aso, the substance they would be using to "Fluoridate" our water, is a highly toxic AND etremely corrosive, industrial waste.
So, Ginger. You haven't read the report, or the evidence it presents, but you still think you're qualified to pass judgement on it. You are sure you are right, because you believe government scientists are all involved in a conspiracy to poison us all. And despite my trying to explain twice, you still haven't grasped what 'poison' means. If you can't even be bothered to read the thing you're saying is rubbish, what makes you think anyone should listen to you?
well said - I don't agree with the principle of this - all a bit to nanny state and allowing lazy irresponsible parents to continue doing what they are doing ( or not doing) but you are quite correct.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: "based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.[/p][/quote]We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?[/p][/quote]India has high levels of natural Fluoride in it's water, before i started to DE-Fluoridate it's water, they also had extremely high rates of dental AND skeletal Fluorosis, Fluoride IS a highly toxic substance, it can cause symptoms of Fluoride poisoning(such as gastrointestinal discomfort) at doses LOWER than what they are trying to force on us, also, mass medication is ILLEGAL and goes AGAINST the human rights act and no, I didn't read the whole report, I know not to take the word of government lackeys seriously, aso, the substance they would be using to "Fluoridate" our water, is a highly toxic AND etremely corrosive, industrial waste.[/p][/quote]So, Ginger. You haven't read the report, or the evidence it presents, but you still think you're qualified to pass judgement on it. You are sure you are right, because you believe government scientists are all involved in a conspiracy to poison us all. And despite my trying to explain twice, you still haven't grasped what 'poison' means. If you can't even be bothered to read the thing you're saying is rubbish, what makes you think anyone should listen to you?[/p][/quote]well said - I don't agree with the principle of this - all a bit to nanny state and allowing lazy irresponsible parents to continue doing what they are doing ( or not doing) but you are quite correct. Kingontail
  • Score: 7

2:31pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
"based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.
We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?
India has high levels of natural Fluoride in it's water, before i started to DE-Fluoridate it's water, they also had extremely high rates of dental AND skeletal Fluorosis, Fluoride IS a highly toxic substance, it can cause symptoms of Fluoride poisoning(such as gastrointestinal discomfort) at doses LOWER than what they are trying to force on us, also, mass medication is ILLEGAL and goes AGAINST the human rights act and no, I didn't read the whole report, I know not to take the word of government lackeys seriously, aso, the substance they would be using to "Fluoridate" our water, is a highly toxic AND etremely corrosive, industrial waste.
So, Ginger. You haven't read the report, or the evidence it presents, but you still think you're qualified to pass judgement on it. You are sure you are right, because you believe government scientists are all involved in a conspiracy to poison us all. And despite my trying to explain twice, you still haven't grasped what 'poison' means. If you can't even be bothered to read the thing you're saying is rubbish, what makes you think anyone should listen to you?
No, the scientists are just doing what they're paid to do, lie about the results if they don't match what the government wants.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: "based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.[/p][/quote]We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?[/p][/quote]India has high levels of natural Fluoride in it's water, before i started to DE-Fluoridate it's water, they also had extremely high rates of dental AND skeletal Fluorosis, Fluoride IS a highly toxic substance, it can cause symptoms of Fluoride poisoning(such as gastrointestinal discomfort) at doses LOWER than what they are trying to force on us, also, mass medication is ILLEGAL and goes AGAINST the human rights act and no, I didn't read the whole report, I know not to take the word of government lackeys seriously, aso, the substance they would be using to "Fluoridate" our water, is a highly toxic AND etremely corrosive, industrial waste.[/p][/quote]So, Ginger. You haven't read the report, or the evidence it presents, but you still think you're qualified to pass judgement on it. You are sure you are right, because you believe government scientists are all involved in a conspiracy to poison us all. And despite my trying to explain twice, you still haven't grasped what 'poison' means. If you can't even be bothered to read the thing you're saying is rubbish, what makes you think anyone should listen to you?[/p][/quote]No, the scientists are just doing what they're paid to do, lie about the results if they don't match what the government wants. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

2:41pm Wed 26 Mar 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
"based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.
We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?
India has high levels of natural Fluoride in it's water, before i started to DE-Fluoridate it's water, they also had extremely high rates of dental AND skeletal Fluorosis, Fluoride IS a highly toxic substance, it can cause symptoms of Fluoride poisoning(such as gastrointestinal discomfort) at doses LOWER than what they are trying to force on us, also, mass medication is ILLEGAL and goes AGAINST the human rights act and no, I didn't read the whole report, I know not to take the word of government lackeys seriously, aso, the substance they would be using to "Fluoridate" our water, is a highly toxic AND etremely corrosive, industrial waste.
So, Ginger. You haven't read the report, or the evidence it presents, but you still think you're qualified to pass judgement on it. You are sure you are right, because you believe government scientists are all involved in a conspiracy to poison us all. And despite my trying to explain twice, you still haven't grasped what 'poison' means. If you can't even be bothered to read the thing you're saying is rubbish, what makes you think anyone should listen to you?
No, the scientists are just doing what they're paid to do, lie about the results if they don't match what the government wants.
Can you tell us exactly what you think the government wants?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: "based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.[/p][/quote]We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?[/p][/quote]India has high levels of natural Fluoride in it's water, before i started to DE-Fluoridate it's water, they also had extremely high rates of dental AND skeletal Fluorosis, Fluoride IS a highly toxic substance, it can cause symptoms of Fluoride poisoning(such as gastrointestinal discomfort) at doses LOWER than what they are trying to force on us, also, mass medication is ILLEGAL and goes AGAINST the human rights act and no, I didn't read the whole report, I know not to take the word of government lackeys seriously, aso, the substance they would be using to "Fluoridate" our water, is a highly toxic AND etremely corrosive, industrial waste.[/p][/quote]So, Ginger. You haven't read the report, or the evidence it presents, but you still think you're qualified to pass judgement on it. You are sure you are right, because you believe government scientists are all involved in a conspiracy to poison us all. And despite my trying to explain twice, you still haven't grasped what 'poison' means. If you can't even be bothered to read the thing you're saying is rubbish, what makes you think anyone should listen to you?[/p][/quote]No, the scientists are just doing what they're paid to do, lie about the results if they don't match what the government wants.[/p][/quote]Can you tell us exactly what you think the government wants? WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 1

2:45pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
"based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.
We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?
India has high levels of natural Fluoride in it's water, before i started to DE-Fluoridate it's water, they also had extremely high rates of dental AND skeletal Fluorosis, Fluoride IS a highly toxic substance, it can cause symptoms of Fluoride poisoning(such as gastrointestinal discomfort) at doses LOWER than what they are trying to force on us, also, mass medication is ILLEGAL and goes AGAINST the human rights act and no, I didn't read the whole report, I know not to take the word of government lackeys seriously, aso, the substance they would be using to "Fluoridate" our water, is a highly toxic AND etremely corrosive, industrial waste.
So, Ginger. You haven't read the report, or the evidence it presents, but you still think you're qualified to pass judgement on it. You are sure you are right, because you believe government scientists are all involved in a conspiracy to poison us all. And despite my trying to explain twice, you still haven't grasped what 'poison' means. If you can't even be bothered to read the thing you're saying is rubbish, what makes you think anyone should listen to you?
No, the scientists are just doing what they're paid to do, lie about the results if they don't match what the government wants.
Can you tell us exactly what you think the government wants?
Money and more power, what else would someone who WANTED power want?
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: "based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.[/p][/quote]We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?[/p][/quote]India has high levels of natural Fluoride in it's water, before i started to DE-Fluoridate it's water, they also had extremely high rates of dental AND skeletal Fluorosis, Fluoride IS a highly toxic substance, it can cause symptoms of Fluoride poisoning(such as gastrointestinal discomfort) at doses LOWER than what they are trying to force on us, also, mass medication is ILLEGAL and goes AGAINST the human rights act and no, I didn't read the whole report, I know not to take the word of government lackeys seriously, aso, the substance they would be using to "Fluoridate" our water, is a highly toxic AND etremely corrosive, industrial waste.[/p][/quote]So, Ginger. You haven't read the report, or the evidence it presents, but you still think you're qualified to pass judgement on it. You are sure you are right, because you believe government scientists are all involved in a conspiracy to poison us all. And despite my trying to explain twice, you still haven't grasped what 'poison' means. If you can't even be bothered to read the thing you're saying is rubbish, what makes you think anyone should listen to you?[/p][/quote]No, the scientists are just doing what they're paid to do, lie about the results if they don't match what the government wants.[/p][/quote]Can you tell us exactly what you think the government wants?[/p][/quote]Money and more power, what else would someone who WANTED power want? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -2

3:03pm Wed 26 Mar 14

SilvanDryad says...

I still don't see why everyone has to drink fluoridated water because of a feckless few. Fluoride toothpaste is readily available. And the kids who have the bad teeth don't drink water anyway (fruit shoots and Red Bull instead).
I still don't see why everyone has to drink fluoridated water because of a feckless few. Fluoride toothpaste is readily available. And the kids who have the bad teeth don't drink water anyway (fruit shoots and Red Bull instead). SilvanDryad
  • Score: 5

3:11pm Wed 26 Mar 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
"based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.
We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?
India has high levels of natural Fluoride in it's water, before i started to DE-Fluoridate it's water, they also had extremely high rates of dental AND skeletal Fluorosis, Fluoride IS a highly toxic substance, it can cause symptoms of Fluoride poisoning(such as gastrointestinal discomfort) at doses LOWER than what they are trying to force on us, also, mass medication is ILLEGAL and goes AGAINST the human rights act and no, I didn't read the whole report, I know not to take the word of government lackeys seriously, aso, the substance they would be using to "Fluoridate" our water, is a highly toxic AND etremely corrosive, industrial waste.
So, Ginger. You haven't read the report, or the evidence it presents, but you still think you're qualified to pass judgement on it. You are sure you are right, because you believe government scientists are all involved in a conspiracy to poison us all. And despite my trying to explain twice, you still haven't grasped what 'poison' means. If you can't even be bothered to read the thing you're saying is rubbish, what makes you think anyone should listen to you?
No, the scientists are just doing what they're paid to do, lie about the results if they don't match what the government wants.
Can you tell us exactly what you think the government wants?
Money and more power, what else would someone who WANTED power want?
How does that translate into fluoridation of water? Please be specific - why and how?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: "based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.[/p][/quote]We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?[/p][/quote]India has high levels of natural Fluoride in it's water, before i started to DE-Fluoridate it's water, they also had extremely high rates of dental AND skeletal Fluorosis, Fluoride IS a highly toxic substance, it can cause symptoms of Fluoride poisoning(such as gastrointestinal discomfort) at doses LOWER than what they are trying to force on us, also, mass medication is ILLEGAL and goes AGAINST the human rights act and no, I didn't read the whole report, I know not to take the word of government lackeys seriously, aso, the substance they would be using to "Fluoridate" our water, is a highly toxic AND etremely corrosive, industrial waste.[/p][/quote]So, Ginger. You haven't read the report, or the evidence it presents, but you still think you're qualified to pass judgement on it. You are sure you are right, because you believe government scientists are all involved in a conspiracy to poison us all. And despite my trying to explain twice, you still haven't grasped what 'poison' means. If you can't even be bothered to read the thing you're saying is rubbish, what makes you think anyone should listen to you?[/p][/quote]No, the scientists are just doing what they're paid to do, lie about the results if they don't match what the government wants.[/p][/quote]Can you tell us exactly what you think the government wants?[/p][/quote]Money and more power, what else would someone who WANTED power want?[/p][/quote]How does that translate into fluoridation of water? Please be specific - why and how? WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 3

4:28pm Wed 26 Mar 14

freefinker says...

Kingontail wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
"based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.
We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?
India has high levels of natural Fluoride in it's water, before i started to DE-Fluoridate it's water, they also had extremely high rates of dental AND skeletal Fluorosis, Fluoride IS a highly toxic substance, it can cause symptoms of Fluoride poisoning(such as gastrointestinal discomfort) at doses LOWER than what they are trying to force on us, also, mass medication is ILLEGAL and goes AGAINST the human rights act and no, I didn't read the whole report, I know not to take the word of government lackeys seriously, aso, the substance they would be using to "Fluoridate" our water, is a highly toxic AND etremely corrosive, industrial waste.
So, Ginger. You haven't read the report, or the evidence it presents, but you still think you're qualified to pass judgement on it. You are sure you are right, because you believe government scientists are all involved in a conspiracy to poison us all. And despite my trying to explain twice, you still haven't grasped what 'poison' means. If you can't even be bothered to read the thing you're saying is rubbish, what makes you think anyone should listen to you?
well said - I don't agree with the principle of this - all a bit to nanny state and allowing lazy irresponsible parents to continue doing what they are doing ( or not doing) but you are quite correct.
.. and I too agree. I also don't want my water fluoridated for a number of reasons, of which some quite minor ones relate to minimal health risks. But spitting out a continuous stream of unresearched pseudo-science does opponents of this undemocratic exercise in mass medication no good whatsoever.
[quote][p][bold]Kingontail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: "based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.[/p][/quote]We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?[/p][/quote]India has high levels of natural Fluoride in it's water, before i started to DE-Fluoridate it's water, they also had extremely high rates of dental AND skeletal Fluorosis, Fluoride IS a highly toxic substance, it can cause symptoms of Fluoride poisoning(such as gastrointestinal discomfort) at doses LOWER than what they are trying to force on us, also, mass medication is ILLEGAL and goes AGAINST the human rights act and no, I didn't read the whole report, I know not to take the word of government lackeys seriously, aso, the substance they would be using to "Fluoridate" our water, is a highly toxic AND etremely corrosive, industrial waste.[/p][/quote]So, Ginger. You haven't read the report, or the evidence it presents, but you still think you're qualified to pass judgement on it. You are sure you are right, because you believe government scientists are all involved in a conspiracy to poison us all. And despite my trying to explain twice, you still haven't grasped what 'poison' means. If you can't even be bothered to read the thing you're saying is rubbish, what makes you think anyone should listen to you?[/p][/quote]well said - I don't agree with the principle of this - all a bit to nanny state and allowing lazy irresponsible parents to continue doing what they are doing ( or not doing) but you are quite correct.[/p][/quote].. and I too agree. I also don't want my water fluoridated for a number of reasons, of which some quite minor ones relate to minimal health risks. But spitting out a continuous stream of unresearched pseudo-science does opponents of this undemocratic exercise in mass medication no good whatsoever. freefinker
  • Score: 7

4:51pm Wed 26 Mar 14

sparkster says...

We dont need fluoride in the water it's already in toothpaste, what it needs is for parents to stop buying endless cans/bottles of coke and fizzy sweets for their kids or giving them money to buy so many. I worked in a shop and kids would file in several times a day during half term, summer holidays and some had tenners on them. When our son was growing up he was given sweets once a week, chocolate buttons. If he asked for money for sweets i would tell him he would be better off eating fruit we always even now have fruit in the house. our son is noe 30 and he doesnt have one filling
We dont need fluoride in the water it's already in toothpaste, what it needs is for parents to stop buying endless cans/bottles of coke and fizzy sweets for their kids or giving them money to buy so many. I worked in a shop and kids would file in several times a day during half term, summer holidays and some had tenners on them. When our son was growing up he was given sweets once a week, chocolate buttons. If he asked for money for sweets i would tell him he would be better off eating fruit we always even now have fruit in the house. our son is noe 30 and he doesnt have one filling sparkster
  • Score: 0

5:26pm Wed 26 Mar 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

freefinker wrote:
Kingontail wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
"based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.
We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?
India has high levels of natural Fluoride in it's water, before i started to DE-Fluoridate it's water, they also had extremely high rates of dental AND skeletal Fluorosis, Fluoride IS a highly toxic substance, it can cause symptoms of Fluoride poisoning(such as gastrointestinal discomfort) at doses LOWER than what they are trying to force on us, also, mass medication is ILLEGAL and goes AGAINST the human rights act and no, I didn't read the whole report, I know not to take the word of government lackeys seriously, aso, the substance they would be using to "Fluoridate" our water, is a highly toxic AND etremely corrosive, industrial waste.
So, Ginger. You haven't read the report, or the evidence it presents, but you still think you're qualified to pass judgement on it. You are sure you are right, because you believe government scientists are all involved in a conspiracy to poison us all. And despite my trying to explain twice, you still haven't grasped what 'poison' means. If you can't even be bothered to read the thing you're saying is rubbish, what makes you think anyone should listen to you?
well said - I don't agree with the principle of this - all a bit to nanny state and allowing lazy irresponsible parents to continue doing what they are doing ( or not doing) but you are quite correct.
.. and I too agree. I also don't want my water fluoridated for a number of reasons, of which some quite minor ones relate to minimal health risks. But spitting out a continuous stream of unresearched pseudo-science does opponents of this undemocratic exercise in mass medication no good whatsoever.
Thanks. I understand, and respect, the 'mass medication' argument. But I'd argue against it for two reasons. 1) it's not medication, in the sense of a medical treatment, but a preventative/prophyl
actic measure which does no harm, only good and 2) as a principle, it's already well established in the fortification of certain key foods. A good example is that the deficiency of vitamin D which causes rickets and osteoporosis is now extremely rare in the western world since the practice of adding it to children's food such as breakfast cereals became commonplace. My argument is that fluoride is no different from Vitamin D in this regard. It does not replace the need for parents to ensure kids have a good dental hygiene regime, absolutely. But kids with bad parents don't have a choice, and it's they who suffer.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingontail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: "based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.[/p][/quote]We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?[/p][/quote]India has high levels of natural Fluoride in it's water, before i started to DE-Fluoridate it's water, they also had extremely high rates of dental AND skeletal Fluorosis, Fluoride IS a highly toxic substance, it can cause symptoms of Fluoride poisoning(such as gastrointestinal discomfort) at doses LOWER than what they are trying to force on us, also, mass medication is ILLEGAL and goes AGAINST the human rights act and no, I didn't read the whole report, I know not to take the word of government lackeys seriously, aso, the substance they would be using to "Fluoridate" our water, is a highly toxic AND etremely corrosive, industrial waste.[/p][/quote]So, Ginger. You haven't read the report, or the evidence it presents, but you still think you're qualified to pass judgement on it. You are sure you are right, because you believe government scientists are all involved in a conspiracy to poison us all. And despite my trying to explain twice, you still haven't grasped what 'poison' means. If you can't even be bothered to read the thing you're saying is rubbish, what makes you think anyone should listen to you?[/p][/quote]well said - I don't agree with the principle of this - all a bit to nanny state and allowing lazy irresponsible parents to continue doing what they are doing ( or not doing) but you are quite correct.[/p][/quote].. and I too agree. I also don't want my water fluoridated for a number of reasons, of which some quite minor ones relate to minimal health risks. But spitting out a continuous stream of unresearched pseudo-science does opponents of this undemocratic exercise in mass medication no good whatsoever.[/p][/quote]Thanks. I understand, and respect, the 'mass medication' argument. But I'd argue against it for two reasons. 1) it's not medication, in the sense of a medical treatment, but a preventative/prophyl actic measure which does no harm, only good and 2) as a principle, it's already well established in the fortification of certain key foods. A good example is that the deficiency of vitamin D which causes rickets and osteoporosis is now extremely rare in the western world since the practice of adding it to children's food such as breakfast cereals became commonplace. My argument is that fluoride is no different from Vitamin D in this regard. It does not replace the need for parents to ensure kids have a good dental hygiene regime, absolutely. But kids with bad parents don't have a choice, and it's they who suffer. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Poppy22 says...

How many more times do we have to say that the whole population of all groups shouldn't be medicated with fluoride just because a proportion of parents - and the NHS! - seem incapable of looking after a proportion of children's dental health?
And as the majority of young children who fall into that bracket are more likely to be seen with a plastic bottle of highly sweetened and additive-laden flavoured drink in their hands, rather than a glass of water from the tap, putting fluoride into everyone's water is total nonsense.
So about time common sense prevailed. We shouldn't even need to be arguing about the toxic nature of fluoride when it's a fundamental childcare health problem caused by bad parenting and the NHS/Govt not following up on bad parenting, and not caused by anything else!
How many more times do we have to say that the whole population of all groups shouldn't be medicated with fluoride just because a proportion of parents - and the NHS! - seem incapable of looking after a proportion of children's dental health? And as the majority of young children who fall into that bracket are more likely to be seen with a plastic bottle of highly sweetened and additive-laden flavoured drink in their hands, rather than a glass of water from the tap, putting fluoride into everyone's water is total nonsense. So about time common sense prevailed. We shouldn't even need to be arguing about the toxic nature of fluoride when it's a fundamental childcare health problem caused by bad parenting and the NHS/Govt not following up on bad parenting, and not caused by anything else! Poppy22
  • Score: 4

5:57pm Wed 26 Mar 14

SOULJACKER says...

How the hell does some panel of suits have the right to decide what goes in the water that we all pay for?
Make the lazy scummy parents teach their kids to clean their teeth, it has worked for ages already & ain't rocket science.
This is all about the 'system' coming in through the back door & trying to control what you do.
It was probably a 'panel of suits' that saw the benefits in the use of Asbestos & Thalidomide & then it bites 'US' in the backside!
How the hell does some panel of suits have the right to decide what goes in the water that we all pay for? Make the lazy scummy parents teach their kids to clean their teeth, it has worked for ages already & ain't rocket science. This is all about the 'system' coming in through the back door & trying to control what you do. It was probably a 'panel of suits' that saw the benefits in the use of Asbestos & Thalidomide & then it bites 'US' in the backside! SOULJACKER
  • Score: 2

6:07pm Wed 26 Mar 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

SOULJACKER wrote:
How the hell does some panel of suits have the right to decide what goes in the water that we all pay for?
Make the lazy scummy parents teach their kids to clean their teeth, it has worked for ages already & ain't rocket science.
This is all about the 'system' coming in through the back door & trying to control what you do.
It was probably a 'panel of suits' that saw the benefits in the use of Asbestos & Thalidomide & then it bites 'US' in the backside!
There's already a 'panel of suits' deciding what goes into your water. Things like chlorine to kill bacteria, for example. You could of course use a bucket to go and get your own water from the Test or the Itchen. But although it would soothe your paranoia, it would probably be at the expense of your contracting dysentery and gastro-enteritis. I wouldn't risk it if I were you - the 'system' is on your side on this one.
[quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: How the hell does some panel of suits have the right to decide what goes in the water that we all pay for? Make the lazy scummy parents teach their kids to clean their teeth, it has worked for ages already & ain't rocket science. This is all about the 'system' coming in through the back door & trying to control what you do. It was probably a 'panel of suits' that saw the benefits in the use of Asbestos & Thalidomide & then it bites 'US' in the backside![/p][/quote]There's already a 'panel of suits' deciding what goes into your water. Things like chlorine to kill bacteria, for example. You could of course use a bucket to go and get your own water from the Test or the Itchen. But although it would soothe your paranoia, it would probably be at the expense of your contracting dysentery and gastro-enteritis. I wouldn't risk it if I were you - the 'system' is on your side on this one. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 1

6:28pm Wed 26 Mar 14

SOULJACKER says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
SOULJACKER wrote:
How the hell does some panel of suits have the right to decide what goes in the water that we all pay for?
Make the lazy scummy parents teach their kids to clean their teeth, it has worked for ages already & ain't rocket science.
This is all about the 'system' coming in through the back door & trying to control what you do.
It was probably a 'panel of suits' that saw the benefits in the use of Asbestos & Thalidomide & then it bites 'US' in the backside!
There's already a 'panel of suits' deciding what goes into your water. Things like chlorine to kill bacteria, for example. You could of course use a bucket to go and get your own water from the Test or the Itchen. But although it would soothe your paranoia, it would probably be at the expense of your contracting dysentery and gastro-enteritis. I wouldn't risk it if I were you - the 'system' is on your side on this one.
Oh well if you say so then it must be right then.
You obviously think that the system knows best because you have been conditioned by your councilors & your MP's, good luck with that then.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: How the hell does some panel of suits have the right to decide what goes in the water that we all pay for? Make the lazy scummy parents teach their kids to clean their teeth, it has worked for ages already & ain't rocket science. This is all about the 'system' coming in through the back door & trying to control what you do. It was probably a 'panel of suits' that saw the benefits in the use of Asbestos & Thalidomide & then it bites 'US' in the backside![/p][/quote]There's already a 'panel of suits' deciding what goes into your water. Things like chlorine to kill bacteria, for example. You could of course use a bucket to go and get your own water from the Test or the Itchen. But although it would soothe your paranoia, it would probably be at the expense of your contracting dysentery and gastro-enteritis. I wouldn't risk it if I were you - the 'system' is on your side on this one.[/p][/quote]Oh well if you say so then it must be right then. You obviously think that the system knows best because you have been conditioned by your councilors & your MP's, good luck with that then. SOULJACKER
  • Score: -4

6:35pm Wed 26 Mar 14

LucieLocket says...

I don't understand why flouridation has the impact it seems to when the evidence would suggest that the kids having teeth removed aren't drinking water at all! If their teeth were coming into contact with water (flouridated or not) on a regular basis then surely they wouldn't have tooth decay - or am I missing something?
I don't understand why flouridation has the impact it seems to when the evidence would suggest that the kids having teeth removed aren't drinking water at all! If their teeth were coming into contact with water (flouridated or not) on a regular basis then surely they wouldn't have tooth decay - or am I missing something? LucieLocket
  • Score: -3

7:00pm Wed 26 Mar 14

BeyondImagination says...

Adding toxic industrial waste to the drinking water of 200,000 will prevent 75 operations to remove decayed teeth! m impressed by these statistics. (Not)

PHE says no evidence of harm from fluoridation whilst accepting that people will have fluorosis. am reminded of a famous man who put his telescope to his blind eye and said "I see no ships".
Adding toxic industrial waste to the drinking water of 200,000 will prevent 75 operations to remove decayed teeth! m impressed by these statistics. (Not) PHE says no evidence of harm from fluoridation whilst accepting that people will have fluorosis. am reminded of a famous man who put his telescope to his blind eye and said "I see no ships". BeyondImagination
  • Score: 3

7:07pm Wed 26 Mar 14

BeyondImagination says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Bagamn wrote:
If I am paying Southern Water for fresh water, are they breaking their agreement with me as they are not supplying pure water. I am in a position where I have to take lots of medication, how do we know that fluoride will not react to my medication? Southern Water could find themselves at the wrong end of Court actions if they insist on going ahead with this. Who wants brown teeth anyhow.
Well evidently there are already 6m people who are using fluoridated water at the moment ...... so about 10% of the UK population.
.
Now there doesnt seem to be much of an uproar from them or even suffering from side effects or indeed having an issue with their medication.
.
So i would assume (?) that all is ok
Do you have anything less boring and predictable to say on this important subject?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: If I am paying Southern Water for fresh water, are they breaking their agreement with me as they are not supplying pure water. I am in a position where I have to take lots of medication, how do we know that fluoride will not react to my medication? Southern Water could find themselves at the wrong end of Court actions if they insist on going ahead with this. Who wants brown teeth anyhow.[/p][/quote]Well evidently there are already 6m people who are using fluoridated water at the moment ...... so about 10% of the UK population. . Now there doesnt seem to be much of an uproar from them or even suffering from side effects or indeed having an issue with their medication. . So i would assume (?) that all is ok[/p][/quote]Do you have anything less boring and predictable to say on this important subject? BeyondImagination
  • Score: 1

7:12pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

,,

PHE have fed a PC with all their best Toxic Waste/Fluoridation results put them up against all their worst none Fluoridation results clicked a mouse and come up with Mass Fluoridation..

That's Disturbing.. PHE is advocating Mass Fluoridation on finding 11% less GENERAL tooth decay for 12-year-olds when Toxic waste/fluoride is added to drinking water

In June 2011 we were promised.. in the area to be fluoridated in and around Southampton, the number of children’s teeth affected by decay will fall – probably by between about 30% and 50%.


http://tinyurl.com/l
aqdklh




IN MAY 2013... ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR STEPHEN PECKHAM.

The level of dental decay in Southampton among five year old children is the lowest it has ever been.

MORE CHILDREN ARE CARIES FREE THAN EVER BEFORE, UP TO 40 % LOWER THEN JUST A FEW YEARS AGO.

70% of Southampton's children do not have any dental disease what's so ever.

-

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




If PHE fed a PC with its 11% cut in GENERAL tooth decay, put it up against Southampton's 40 % cut in tooth decay and clicked on a mouse.. it would come up with Mass Resignations for PHE




,,
,, PHE have fed a PC with all their best Toxic Waste/Fluoridation results put them up against all their worst none Fluoridation results clicked a mouse and come up with Mass Fluoridation.. That's Disturbing.. PHE is advocating Mass Fluoridation on finding 11% less GENERAL tooth decay for 12-year-olds when Toxic waste/fluoride is added to drinking water In June 2011 we were promised.. in the area to be fluoridated in and around Southampton, the number of children’s teeth affected by decay will fall – probably by between about 30% and 50%. http://tinyurl.com/l aqdklh IN MAY 2013... ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR STEPHEN PECKHAM. The level of dental decay in Southampton among five year old children is the lowest it has ever been. MORE CHILDREN ARE CARIES FREE THAN EVER BEFORE, UP TO 40 % LOWER THEN JUST A FEW YEARS AGO. 70% of Southampton's children do not have any dental disease what's so ever. - http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=1LglU4uUJ R4 If PHE fed a PC with its 11% cut in GENERAL tooth decay, put it up against Southampton's 40 % cut in tooth decay and clicked on a mouse.. it would come up with Mass Resignations for PHE ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 3

7:13pm Wed 26 Mar 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

BeyondImagination wrote:
Adding toxic industrial waste to the drinking water of 200,000 will prevent 75 operations to remove decayed teeth! m impressed by these statistics. (Not)

PHE says no evidence of harm from fluoridation whilst accepting that people will have fluorosis. am reminded of a famous man who put his telescope to his blind eye and said "I see no ships".
Where do you get that statistic from?
[quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: Adding toxic industrial waste to the drinking water of 200,000 will prevent 75 operations to remove decayed teeth! m impressed by these statistics. (Not) PHE says no evidence of harm from fluoridation whilst accepting that people will have fluorosis. am reminded of a famous man who put his telescope to his blind eye and said "I see no ships".[/p][/quote]Where do you get that statistic from? WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 1

7:31pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

BeyondImagination wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Bagamn wrote:
If I am paying Southern Water for fresh water, are they breaking their agreement with me as they are not supplying pure water. I am in a position where I have to take lots of medication, how do we know that fluoride will not react to my medication? Southern Water could find themselves at the wrong end of Court actions if they insist on going ahead with this. Who wants brown teeth anyhow.
Well evidently there are already 6m people who are using fluoridated water at the moment ...... so about 10% of the UK population.
.
Now there doesnt seem to be much of an uproar from them or even suffering from side effects or indeed having an issue with their medication.
.
So i would assume (?) that all is ok
Do you have anything less boring and predictable to say on this important subject?
Oh dear ... a bit touchy ....
.
But you will do well to read the post which was MY RESPONSE to poster Bagamn.
.
After all your contribution to the topic is to say the least .... somewhat non existant ...... at least i contribute something to this important subject .... yours to date is ZERO ...... in both interest and content
[quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: If I am paying Southern Water for fresh water, are they breaking their agreement with me as they are not supplying pure water. I am in a position where I have to take lots of medication, how do we know that fluoride will not react to my medication? Southern Water could find themselves at the wrong end of Court actions if they insist on going ahead with this. Who wants brown teeth anyhow.[/p][/quote]Well evidently there are already 6m people who are using fluoridated water at the moment ...... so about 10% of the UK population. . Now there doesnt seem to be much of an uproar from them or even suffering from side effects or indeed having an issue with their medication. . So i would assume (?) that all is ok[/p][/quote]Do you have anything less boring and predictable to say on this important subject?[/p][/quote]Oh dear ... a bit touchy .... . But you will do well to read the post which was MY RESPONSE to poster Bagamn. . After all your contribution to the topic is to say the least .... somewhat non existant ...... at least i contribute something to this important subject .... yours to date is ZERO ...... in both interest and content Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 1

9:18pm Wed 26 Mar 14

BeyondImagination says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
BeyondImagination wrote:
Adding toxic industrial waste to the drinking water of 200,000 will prevent 75 operations to remove decayed teeth! m impressed by these statistics. (Not)

PHE says no evidence of harm from fluoridation whilst accepting that people will have fluorosis. am reminded of a famous man who put his telescope to his blind eye and said "I see no ships".
Where do you get that statistic from?
500 operations. PHE states reduction of 15% in fluoridated areas.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: Adding toxic industrial waste to the drinking water of 200,000 will prevent 75 operations to remove decayed teeth! m impressed by these statistics. (Not) PHE says no evidence of harm from fluoridation whilst accepting that people will have fluorosis. am reminded of a famous man who put his telescope to his blind eye and said "I see no ships".[/p][/quote]Where do you get that statistic from?[/p][/quote]500 operations. PHE states reduction of 15% in fluoridated areas. BeyondImagination
  • Score: -3

9:24pm Wed 26 Mar 14

BeyondImagination says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
BeyondImagination wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Bagamn wrote:
If I am paying Southern Water for fresh water, are they breaking their agreement with me as they are not supplying pure water. I am in a position where I have to take lots of medication, how do we know that fluoride will not react to my medication? Southern Water could find themselves at the wrong end of Court actions if they insist on going ahead with this. Who wants brown teeth anyhow.
Well evidently there are already 6m people who are using fluoridated water at the moment ...... so about 10% of the UK population.
.
Now there doesnt seem to be much of an uproar from them or even suffering from side effects or indeed having an issue with their medication.
.
So i would assume (?) that all is ok
Do you have anything less boring and predictable to say on this important subject?
Oh dear ... a bit touchy ....
.
But you will do well to read the post which was MY RESPONSE to poster Bagamn.
.
After all your contribution to the topic is to say the least .... somewhat non existant ...... at least i contribute something to this important subject .... yours to date is ZERO ...... in both interest and content
I trust the evidence of people like Professor Stephen Peckham and Professor Paul Connett about the repetitive comments of the SHA and PHE.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: If I am paying Southern Water for fresh water, are they breaking their agreement with me as they are not supplying pure water. I am in a position where I have to take lots of medication, how do we know that fluoride will not react to my medication? Southern Water could find themselves at the wrong end of Court actions if they insist on going ahead with this. Who wants brown teeth anyhow.[/p][/quote]Well evidently there are already 6m people who are using fluoridated water at the moment ...... so about 10% of the UK population. . Now there doesnt seem to be much of an uproar from them or even suffering from side effects or indeed having an issue with their medication. . So i would assume (?) that all is ok[/p][/quote]Do you have anything less boring and predictable to say on this important subject?[/p][/quote]Oh dear ... a bit touchy .... . But you will do well to read the post which was MY RESPONSE to poster Bagamn. . After all your contribution to the topic is to say the least .... somewhat non existant ...... at least i contribute something to this important subject .... yours to date is ZERO ...... in both interest and content[/p][/quote]I trust the evidence of people like Professor Stephen Peckham and Professor Paul Connett about the repetitive comments of the SHA and PHE. BeyondImagination
  • Score: -3

9:27pm Wed 26 Mar 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

BeyondImagination wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
BeyondImagination wrote:
Adding toxic industrial waste to the drinking water of 200,000 will prevent 75 operations to remove decayed teeth! m impressed by these statistics. (Not)

PHE says no evidence of harm from fluoridation whilst accepting that people will have fluorosis. am reminded of a famous man who put his telescope to his blind eye and said "I see no ships".
Where do you get that statistic from?
500 operations. PHE states reduction of 15% in fluoridated areas.
I understand. The PHE report actually states '15% fewer five year olds with tooth decay' in fluoridated areas. That's a benefit to many thousands of children. The 500 quoted in the headline are only those who have to undergo a general anaesthetic in order to have teeth removed - the benefits extend to far more than just this group.
[quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: Adding toxic industrial waste to the drinking water of 200,000 will prevent 75 operations to remove decayed teeth! m impressed by these statistics. (Not) PHE says no evidence of harm from fluoridation whilst accepting that people will have fluorosis. am reminded of a famous man who put his telescope to his blind eye and said "I see no ships".[/p][/quote]Where do you get that statistic from?[/p][/quote]500 operations. PHE states reduction of 15% in fluoridated areas.[/p][/quote]I understand. The PHE report actually states '15% fewer five year olds with tooth decay' in fluoridated areas. That's a benefit to many thousands of children. The 500 quoted in the headline are only those who have to undergo a general anaesthetic in order to have teeth removed - the benefits extend to far more than just this group. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 1

9:45pm Wed 26 Mar 14

BeyondImagination says...

Many thousands out of 200,000 population. What is the basis of your statistics?

In the end tooth decay will be reduced by better parental care. A reduction in their IQ as a result of fluoridation will lead to less care and more tooth decay,
Many thousands out of 200,000 population. What is the basis of your statistics? In the end tooth decay will be reduced by better parental care. A reduction in their IQ as a result of fluoridation will lead to less care and more tooth decay, BeyondImagination
  • Score: 0

10:08pm Wed 26 Mar 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

BeyondImagination wrote:
Many thousands out of 200,000 population. What is the basis of your statistics?

In the end tooth decay will be reduced by better parental care. A reduction in their IQ as a result of fluoridation will lead to less care and more tooth decay,
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. And that benefit carries on cumulatively, year after year, protecting older children as well. It's a huge health benefit. I agree 100% with you, that it shouldn't be seen as being an alternative to parental care, but as an addition to it. My point remains that the children themselves are the ones that need the help. It's not their fault for having bad parents. That can't be fixed overnight but fluoridising water will have an immediate and beneficial impact. I am aware of no evidence at all that fluoridation at the levels being discussed here have been demonstrated to impact on IQ. If you have some, I'd be interested to see it - thanks.
[quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: Many thousands out of 200,000 population. What is the basis of your statistics? In the end tooth decay will be reduced by better parental care. A reduction in their IQ as a result of fluoridation will lead to less care and more tooth decay,[/p][/quote]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. And that benefit carries on cumulatively, year after year, protecting older children as well. It's a huge health benefit. I agree 100% with you, that it shouldn't be seen as being an alternative to parental care, but as an addition to it. My point remains that the children themselves are the ones that need the help. It's not their fault for having bad parents. That can't be fixed overnight but fluoridising water will have an immediate and beneficial impact. I am aware of no evidence at all that fluoridation at the levels being discussed here have been demonstrated to impact on IQ. If you have some, I'd be interested to see it - thanks. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 0

10:32pm Wed 26 Mar 14

BeyondImagination says...

Cleaning teeth and good dental care will have an immediate impact on tooth decay without impacting on the 172,800 potentially put at risk with no possible benefit.

Whichever way you look at it the statistics do not add up.

PHE and previously SHA have simply repeated their belief that fluoridation is safe despite mounting evidence from across the world that there is sufficient doubt to at least conduct proper independent scientific research before introducing new schemes.
Cleaning teeth and good dental care will have an immediate impact on tooth decay without impacting on the 172,800 potentially put at risk with no possible benefit. Whichever way you look at it the statistics do not add up. PHE and previously SHA have simply repeated their belief that fluoridation is safe despite mounting evidence from across the world that there is sufficient doubt to at least conduct proper independent scientific research before introducing new schemes. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 0

11:00pm Wed 26 Mar 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

BeyondImagination wrote:
Cleaning teeth and good dental care will have an immediate impact on tooth decay without impacting on the 172,800 potentially put at risk with no possible benefit.

Whichever way you look at it the statistics do not add up.

PHE and previously SHA have simply repeated their belief that fluoridation is safe despite mounting evidence from across the world that there is sufficient doubt to at least conduct proper independent scientific research before introducing new schemes.
You seem to have ignored my numbers, which show that the statistics do stack up very significantly. It's the job of PHE to examine all the available evidence and recommend a course of action which benefits the greatest number of people, which is what they've done. There's no evidence of detrimental impacts in areas which are already fluoridated - there's loads of detail to support that in the full paper which is on the PHE website.

In an ideal world, everyone would look after their children properly and make sure their teeth are properly cleaned, but we're not living in that world. If we were running a big budget surplus the money might be available to spend on a massive education drive, but at the present time it's not. Meanwhile kids' teeth are rotting and action needs to be taken.
[quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: Cleaning teeth and good dental care will have an immediate impact on tooth decay without impacting on the 172,800 potentially put at risk with no possible benefit. Whichever way you look at it the statistics do not add up. PHE and previously SHA have simply repeated their belief that fluoridation is safe despite mounting evidence from across the world that there is sufficient doubt to at least conduct proper independent scientific research before introducing new schemes.[/p][/quote]You seem to have ignored my numbers, which show that the statistics do stack up very significantly. It's the job of PHE to examine all the available evidence and recommend a course of action which benefits the greatest number of people, which is what they've done. There's no evidence of detrimental impacts in areas which are already fluoridated - there's loads of detail to support that in the full paper which is on the PHE website. In an ideal world, everyone would look after their children properly and make sure their teeth are properly cleaned, but we're not living in that world. If we were running a big budget surplus the money might be available to spend on a massive education drive, but at the present time it's not. Meanwhile kids' teeth are rotting and action needs to be taken. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 1

11:08pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
,,

PHE have fed a PC with all their best Toxic Waste/Fluoridation results put them up against all their worst none Fluoridation results clicked a mouse and come up with Mass Fluoridation..

That's Disturbing.. PHE is advocating Mass Fluoridation on finding 11% less GENERAL tooth decay for 12-year-olds when Toxic waste/fluoride is added to drinking water

In June 2011 we were promised.. in the area to be fluoridated in and around Southampton, the number of children’s teeth affected by decay will fall – probably by between about 30% and 50%.


http://tinyurl.com/l

aqdklh




IN MAY 2013... ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR STEPHEN PECKHAM.

The level of dental decay in Southampton among five year old children is the lowest it has ever been.

MORE CHILDREN ARE CARIES FREE THAN EVER BEFORE, UP TO 40 % LOWER THEN JUST A FEW YEARS AGO.

70% of Southampton's children do not have any dental disease what's so ever.

-

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=1LglU4uUJ

R4




If PHE fed a PC with its 11% cut in GENERAL tooth decay, put it up against Southampton's 40 % cut in tooth decay and clicked on a mouse.. it would come up with Mass Resignations for PHE




,,
,,


Birmingham's dentists carry out dental extraction's on 5,475 children a year... 11x Southampton's extraction rate.


If you believe PHE that could of been 10,950... 22x Southampton's extraction rate.


Odd when you think Birmingham has only 4x Southampton's population?


-


UNITED COMMUNITIES OF SOUTHAMPTON

Press Release to all Media Outlets

13 JAN 2013

United Communities of Southampton Statement on fluoridation

We firmly believe that it is our GOD given right, and responsibility, to choose what medications and food we consume .

Whilst we understand the plight of those suffering from tooth decay; and our hearts go out to all those affected .We most firmly do NOT support the addition of hydrofluosilicic acid commonly referred to as fluoride to our water to address this issue .

There is no good science to show that fluoridation is effective in reducing tooth decay, nor is there good evidence to prove that it is safe .

In fact, we have solid PROOF that fluoridating the water is both ineffective and dangerous - to the health of humans and to Nature too . IN BIRMINGHAM THE WATER HAS BEEN FLUORIDATED FOR SOME TIME; DESPITE THIS, BIRMINGHAM IS STILL CARRYING OUT DENTAL EXTRACTIONS ON 15 CHILDREN PER DAY UNDER GENERAL ANAESTHETIC.

Dr Dean Burke , chief scientist at the National Cancer Institute (USA) , stated under oath at a Congressional hearing 'Nothing causes or makes cancer explode faster in the body than fluoride.'Dr Burke calculated that adding fluoride to the water would increase the cancer rate by at least 10%. No-one has challenged his figures.

In 2007 the American Dental Association warned parents not to make up formula milk with fluoridated water. In Southampton the reckless SHA has deemed any such warning as unnecessary.

We have many , many concerns about the safety of ingesting an accumulative poison ; there are too many to list here .You need to understand that very few medical or dental 'professionals' are fully aware of the toxicity of fluoride.

But fundamentally, the enforced medication by means of fluoridation is absolutely against our religious beliefs and is an insult to our Freedom. We feel most strongly that this is breaking the Law of the land. You do NOT have our consent to force our community to consume this awful toxin.

Furthermore we have PROVEN methods that will safely and significantly reduce tooth decay , if not entirely eradicate this disease. We would very much like to share these proven measures with our communities and health authorities alike. Therefore we most strongly urge you to 'cease and desist' with any plans to fluoridate our drinking water .

We urge you to meet with us in the near future so that we may work together to resolve this issue.

For further info contact organising members of UCS

Dr Zac Cox (Dentist), Mr Harjap Singh, Mr Ziarat Hussain, Mr Arshad Sharif, Mr Prithipal Singh Roath – p.singhroath@hotmail
.co.uk




,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: ,, PHE have fed a PC with all their best Toxic Waste/Fluoridation results put them up against all their worst none Fluoridation results clicked a mouse and come up with Mass Fluoridation.. That's Disturbing.. PHE is advocating Mass Fluoridation on finding 11% less GENERAL tooth decay for 12-year-olds when Toxic waste/fluoride is added to drinking water In June 2011 we were promised.. in the area to be fluoridated in and around Southampton, the number of children’s teeth affected by decay will fall – probably by between about 30% and 50%. http://tinyurl.com/l aqdklh IN MAY 2013... ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR STEPHEN PECKHAM. The level of dental decay in Southampton among five year old children is the lowest it has ever been. MORE CHILDREN ARE CARIES FREE THAN EVER BEFORE, UP TO 40 % LOWER THEN JUST A FEW YEARS AGO. 70% of Southampton's children do not have any dental disease what's so ever. - http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=1LglU4uUJ R4 If PHE fed a PC with its 11% cut in GENERAL tooth decay, put it up against Southampton's 40 % cut in tooth decay and clicked on a mouse.. it would come up with Mass Resignations for PHE ,,[/p][/quote],, Birmingham's dentists carry out dental extraction's on 5,475 children a year... 11x Southampton's extraction rate. If you believe PHE that could of been 10,950... 22x Southampton's extraction rate. Odd when you think Birmingham has only 4x Southampton's population? - UNITED COMMUNITIES OF SOUTHAMPTON Press Release to all Media Outlets 13 JAN 2013 United Communities of Southampton Statement on fluoridation We firmly believe that it is our GOD given right, and responsibility, to choose what medications and food we consume . Whilst we understand the plight of those suffering from tooth decay; and our hearts go out to all those affected .We most firmly do NOT support the addition of hydrofluosilicic acid commonly referred to as fluoride to our water to address this issue . There is no good science to show that fluoridation is effective in reducing tooth decay, nor is there good evidence to prove that it is safe . In fact, we have solid PROOF that fluoridating the water is both ineffective and dangerous - to the health of humans and to Nature too . IN BIRMINGHAM THE WATER HAS BEEN FLUORIDATED FOR SOME TIME; DESPITE THIS, BIRMINGHAM IS STILL CARRYING OUT DENTAL EXTRACTIONS ON 15 CHILDREN PER DAY UNDER GENERAL ANAESTHETIC. Dr Dean Burke , chief scientist at the National Cancer Institute (USA) , stated under oath at a Congressional hearing 'Nothing causes or makes cancer explode faster in the body than fluoride.'Dr Burke calculated that adding fluoride to the water would increase the cancer rate by at least 10%. No-one has challenged his figures. In 2007 the American Dental Association warned parents not to make up formula milk with fluoridated water. In Southampton the reckless SHA has deemed any such warning as unnecessary. We have many , many concerns about the safety of ingesting an accumulative poison ; there are too many to list here .You need to understand that very few medical or dental 'professionals' are fully aware of the toxicity of fluoride. But fundamentally, the enforced medication by means of fluoridation is absolutely against our religious beliefs and is an insult to our Freedom. We feel most strongly that this is breaking the Law of the land. You do NOT have our consent to force our community to consume this awful toxin. Furthermore we have PROVEN methods that will safely and significantly reduce tooth decay , if not entirely eradicate this disease. We would very much like to share these proven measures with our communities and health authorities alike. Therefore we most strongly urge you to 'cease and desist' with any plans to fluoridate our drinking water . We urge you to meet with us in the near future so that we may work together to resolve this issue. For further info contact organising members of UCS Dr Zac Cox (Dentist), Mr Harjap Singh, Mr Ziarat Hussain, Mr Arshad Sharif, Mr Prithipal Singh Roath – p.singhroath@hotmail .co.uk ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 3

11:21pm Wed 26 Mar 14

BeyondImagination says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
BeyondImagination wrote:
Cleaning teeth and good dental care will have an immediate impact on tooth decay without impacting on the 172,800 potentially put at risk with no possible benefit.

Whichever way you look at it the statistics do not add up.

PHE and previously SHA have simply repeated their belief that fluoridation is safe despite mounting evidence from across the world that there is sufficient doubt to at least conduct proper independent scientific research before introducing new schemes.
You seem to have ignored my numbers, which show that the statistics do stack up very significantly. It's the job of PHE to examine all the available evidence and recommend a course of action which benefits the greatest number of people, which is what they've done. There's no evidence of detrimental impacts in areas which are already fluoridated - there's loads of detail to support that in the full paper which is on the PHE website.

In an ideal world, everyone would look after their children properly and make sure their teeth are properly cleaned, but we're not living in that world. If we were running a big budget surplus the money might be available to spend on a massive education drive, but at the present time it's not. Meanwhile kids' teeth are rotting and action needs to be taken.
I do seem to have misinterpreted your figures that 2,250 children will possibly benefit. That leaves 197,750 who are put at risk.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: Cleaning teeth and good dental care will have an immediate impact on tooth decay without impacting on the 172,800 potentially put at risk with no possible benefit. Whichever way you look at it the statistics do not add up. PHE and previously SHA have simply repeated their belief that fluoridation is safe despite mounting evidence from across the world that there is sufficient doubt to at least conduct proper independent scientific research before introducing new schemes.[/p][/quote]You seem to have ignored my numbers, which show that the statistics do stack up very significantly. It's the job of PHE to examine all the available evidence and recommend a course of action which benefits the greatest number of people, which is what they've done. There's no evidence of detrimental impacts in areas which are already fluoridated - there's loads of detail to support that in the full paper which is on the PHE website. In an ideal world, everyone would look after their children properly and make sure their teeth are properly cleaned, but we're not living in that world. If we were running a big budget surplus the money might be available to spend on a massive education drive, but at the present time it's not. Meanwhile kids' teeth are rotting and action needs to be taken.[/p][/quote]I do seem to have misinterpreted your figures that 2,250 children will possibly benefit. That leaves 197,750 who are put at risk. BeyondImagination
  • Score: -3

11:28pm Wed 26 Mar 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

BeyondImagination wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
BeyondImagination wrote:
Cleaning teeth and good dental care will have an immediate impact on tooth decay without impacting on the 172,800 potentially put at risk with no possible benefit.

Whichever way you look at it the statistics do not add up.

PHE and previously SHA have simply repeated their belief that fluoridation is safe despite mounting evidence from across the world that there is sufficient doubt to at least conduct proper independent scientific research before introducing new schemes.
You seem to have ignored my numbers, which show that the statistics do stack up very significantly. It's the job of PHE to examine all the available evidence and recommend a course of action which benefits the greatest number of people, which is what they've done. There's no evidence of detrimental impacts in areas which are already fluoridated - there's loads of detail to support that in the full paper which is on the PHE website.

In an ideal world, everyone would look after their children properly and make sure their teeth are properly cleaned, but we're not living in that world. If we were running a big budget surplus the money might be available to spend on a massive education drive, but at the present time it's not. Meanwhile kids' teeth are rotting and action needs to be taken.
I do seem to have misinterpreted your figures that 2,250 children will possibly benefit. That leaves 197,750 who are put at risk.
It's a pity you're choosing to be deliberately obtuse, I thought you were above that. As I said before, why not post some evidence to support your argument, instead of just restating it in slightly different ways.
[quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: Cleaning teeth and good dental care will have an immediate impact on tooth decay without impacting on the 172,800 potentially put at risk with no possible benefit. Whichever way you look at it the statistics do not add up. PHE and previously SHA have simply repeated their belief that fluoridation is safe despite mounting evidence from across the world that there is sufficient doubt to at least conduct proper independent scientific research before introducing new schemes.[/p][/quote]You seem to have ignored my numbers, which show that the statistics do stack up very significantly. It's the job of PHE to examine all the available evidence and recommend a course of action which benefits the greatest number of people, which is what they've done. There's no evidence of detrimental impacts in areas which are already fluoridated - there's loads of detail to support that in the full paper which is on the PHE website. In an ideal world, everyone would look after their children properly and make sure their teeth are properly cleaned, but we're not living in that world. If we were running a big budget surplus the money might be available to spend on a massive education drive, but at the present time it's not. Meanwhile kids' teeth are rotting and action needs to be taken.[/p][/quote]I do seem to have misinterpreted your figures that 2,250 children will possibly benefit. That leaves 197,750 who are put at risk.[/p][/quote]It's a pity you're choosing to be deliberately obtuse, I thought you were above that. As I said before, why not post some evidence to support your argument, instead of just restating it in slightly different ways. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 2

2:30am Thu 27 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
,,

PHE have fed a PC with all their best Toxic Waste/Fluoridation results put them up against all their worst none Fluoridation results clicked a mouse and come up with Mass Fluoridation..

That's Disturbing.. PHE is advocating Mass Fluoridation on finding 11% less GENERAL tooth decay for 12-year-olds when Toxic waste/fluoride is added to drinking water

In June 2011 we were promised.. in the area to be fluoridated in and around Southampton, the number of children’s teeth affected by decay will fall – probably by between about 30% and 50%.


http://tinyurl.com/l


aqdklh




IN MAY 2013... ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR STEPHEN PECKHAM.

The level of dental decay in Southampton among five year old children is the lowest it has ever been.

MORE CHILDREN ARE CARIES FREE THAN EVER BEFORE, UP TO 40 % LOWER THEN JUST A FEW YEARS AGO.

70% of Southampton's children do not have any dental disease what's so ever.

-

http://www.youtube.c


om/watch?v=1LglU4uUJ


R4




If PHE fed a PC with its 11% cut in GENERAL tooth decay, put it up against Southampton's 40 % cut in tooth decay and clicked on a mouse.. it would come up with Mass Resignations for PHE




,,
,,


Birmingham's dentists carry out dental extraction's on 5,475 children a year... 11x Southampton's extraction rate.


If you believe PHE that could of been 10,950... 22x Southampton's extraction rate.


Odd when you think Birmingham has only 4x Southampton's population?


-


UNITED COMMUNITIES OF SOUTHAMPTON

Press Release to all Media Outlets

13 JAN 2013

United Communities of Southampton Statement on fluoridation

We firmly believe that it is our GOD given right, and responsibility, to choose what medications and food we consume .

Whilst we understand the plight of those suffering from tooth decay; and our hearts go out to all those affected .We most firmly do NOT support the addition of hydrofluosilicic acid commonly referred to as fluoride to our water to address this issue .

There is no good science to show that fluoridation is effective in reducing tooth decay, nor is there good evidence to prove that it is safe .

In fact, we have solid PROOF that fluoridating the water is both ineffective and dangerous - to the health of humans and to Nature too . IN BIRMINGHAM THE WATER HAS BEEN FLUORIDATED FOR SOME TIME; DESPITE THIS, BIRMINGHAM IS STILL CARRYING OUT DENTAL EXTRACTIONS ON 15 CHILDREN PER DAY UNDER GENERAL ANAESTHETIC.

Dr Dean Burke , chief scientist at the National Cancer Institute (USA) , stated under oath at a Congressional hearing 'Nothing causes or makes cancer explode faster in the body than fluoride.'Dr Burke calculated that adding fluoride to the water would increase the cancer rate by at least 10%. No-one has challenged his figures.

In 2007 the American Dental Association warned parents not to make up formula milk with fluoridated water. In Southampton the reckless SHA has deemed any such warning as unnecessary.

We have many , many concerns about the safety of ingesting an accumulative poison ; there are too many to list here .You need to understand that very few medical or dental 'professionals' are fully aware of the toxicity of fluoride.

But fundamentally, the enforced medication by means of fluoridation is absolutely against our religious beliefs and is an insult to our Freedom. We feel most strongly that this is breaking the Law of the land. You do NOT have our consent to force our community to consume this awful toxin.

Furthermore we have PROVEN methods that will safely and significantly reduce tooth decay , if not entirely eradicate this disease. We would very much like to share these proven measures with our communities and health authorities alike. Therefore we most strongly urge you to 'cease and desist' with any plans to fluoridate our drinking water .

We urge you to meet with us in the near future so that we may work together to resolve this issue.

For further info contact organising members of UCS

Dr Zac Cox (Dentist), Mr Harjap Singh, Mr Ziarat Hussain, Mr Arshad Sharif, Mr Prithipal Singh Roath – p.singhroath@hotmail

.co.uk




,,
,,


Re: Birmingham's dentists carry out dental extraction's on 5,475 children a year... 11x Southampton's extractions..



Fluoridated since 1964.. LOTS of Solihull's ( Birmingham ) youngsters have cavities!




CHILDREN SET TO BE TARGETED IN A BID TO BOOST DENTAL HEALTH

By HANNAH JENNINGS PARRY.

16 Feb 2013.

A DENTIST from Solihull, is offering special children's clinics AFTER HAVING TO TREAT "LOTS" OF LOCAL YOUNGSTERS FOR FILLINGS BEFORE THEY EVEN HAVE ADULT TEETH.

Satinder and Joanna Kelley, owners of Dickens Heath surgery, Heath Dental, said childhood cavities were such an issue, they were now offering foaming fluoride treatment Flairesse, to help repair cavities in youngsters' pearly whites.


http://www.zetadenta
l.co.uk/article-626-
Dental-Health-Month-
for-Children.html




PHE say 500 children in the (Southampton) region need to have teeth extracted under general anaesthetic due to tooth decay


Surely that can't be the same 500 children they quoted back in June 2011?


http://tinyurl.com/l
aqdklh




,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: ,, PHE have fed a PC with all their best Toxic Waste/Fluoridation results put them up against all their worst none Fluoridation results clicked a mouse and come up with Mass Fluoridation.. That's Disturbing.. PHE is advocating Mass Fluoridation on finding 11% less GENERAL tooth decay for 12-year-olds when Toxic waste/fluoride is added to drinking water In June 2011 we were promised.. in the area to be fluoridated in and around Southampton, the number of children’s teeth affected by decay will fall – probably by between about 30% and 50%. http://tinyurl.com/l aqdklh IN MAY 2013... ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR STEPHEN PECKHAM. The level of dental decay in Southampton among five year old children is the lowest it has ever been. MORE CHILDREN ARE CARIES FREE THAN EVER BEFORE, UP TO 40 % LOWER THEN JUST A FEW YEARS AGO. 70% of Southampton's children do not have any dental disease what's so ever. - http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=1LglU4uUJ R4 If PHE fed a PC with its 11% cut in GENERAL tooth decay, put it up against Southampton's 40 % cut in tooth decay and clicked on a mouse.. it would come up with Mass Resignations for PHE ,,[/p][/quote],, Birmingham's dentists carry out dental extraction's on 5,475 children a year... 11x Southampton's extraction rate. If you believe PHE that could of been 10,950... 22x Southampton's extraction rate. Odd when you think Birmingham has only 4x Southampton's population? - UNITED COMMUNITIES OF SOUTHAMPTON Press Release to all Media Outlets 13 JAN 2013 United Communities of Southampton Statement on fluoridation We firmly believe that it is our GOD given right, and responsibility, to choose what medications and food we consume . Whilst we understand the plight of those suffering from tooth decay; and our hearts go out to all those affected .We most firmly do NOT support the addition of hydrofluosilicic acid commonly referred to as fluoride to our water to address this issue . There is no good science to show that fluoridation is effective in reducing tooth decay, nor is there good evidence to prove that it is safe . In fact, we have solid PROOF that fluoridating the water is both ineffective and dangerous - to the health of humans and to Nature too . IN BIRMINGHAM THE WATER HAS BEEN FLUORIDATED FOR SOME TIME; DESPITE THIS, BIRMINGHAM IS STILL CARRYING OUT DENTAL EXTRACTIONS ON 15 CHILDREN PER DAY UNDER GENERAL ANAESTHETIC. Dr Dean Burke , chief scientist at the National Cancer Institute (USA) , stated under oath at a Congressional hearing 'Nothing causes or makes cancer explode faster in the body than fluoride.'Dr Burke calculated that adding fluoride to the water would increase the cancer rate by at least 10%. No-one has challenged his figures. In 2007 the American Dental Association warned parents not to make up formula milk with fluoridated water. In Southampton the reckless SHA has deemed any such warning as unnecessary. We have many , many concerns about the safety of ingesting an accumulative poison ; there are too many to list here .You need to understand that very few medical or dental 'professionals' are fully aware of the toxicity of fluoride. But fundamentally, the enforced medication by means of fluoridation is absolutely against our religious beliefs and is an insult to our Freedom. We feel most strongly that this is breaking the Law of the land. You do NOT have our consent to force our community to consume this awful toxin. Furthermore we have PROVEN methods that will safely and significantly reduce tooth decay , if not entirely eradicate this disease. We would very much like to share these proven measures with our communities and health authorities alike. Therefore we most strongly urge you to 'cease and desist' with any plans to fluoridate our drinking water . We urge you to meet with us in the near future so that we may work together to resolve this issue. For further info contact organising members of UCS Dr Zac Cox (Dentist), Mr Harjap Singh, Mr Ziarat Hussain, Mr Arshad Sharif, Mr Prithipal Singh Roath – p.singhroath@hotmail .co.uk ,,[/p][/quote],, Re: Birmingham's dentists carry out dental extraction's on 5,475 children a year... 11x Southampton's extractions.. Fluoridated since 1964.. LOTS of Solihull's ( Birmingham ) youngsters have cavities! CHILDREN SET TO BE TARGETED IN A BID TO BOOST DENTAL HEALTH By HANNAH JENNINGS PARRY. 16 Feb 2013. A DENTIST from Solihull, is offering special children's clinics AFTER HAVING TO TREAT "LOTS" OF LOCAL YOUNGSTERS FOR FILLINGS BEFORE THEY EVEN HAVE ADULT TEETH. Satinder and Joanna Kelley, owners of Dickens Heath surgery, Heath Dental, said childhood cavities were such an issue, they were now offering foaming fluoride treatment Flairesse, to help repair cavities in youngsters' pearly whites. http://www.zetadenta l.co.uk/article-626- Dental-Health-Month- for-Children.html PHE say 500 children in the (Southampton) region need to have teeth extracted under general anaesthetic due to tooth decay Surely that can't be the same 500 children they quoted back in June 2011? http://tinyurl.com/l aqdklh ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

3:00am Thu 27 Mar 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Surprise, surprise. Dan Soton and his extremely helpful process of continually quoting his own posts from years before. Including one that cites a letter from a bunch of faith leaders who tell us that fluoridation goes against 'their God given rights'. Why don't you grow up?
Surprise, surprise. Dan Soton and his extremely helpful process of continually quoting his own posts from years before. Including one that cites a letter from a bunch of faith leaders who tell us that fluoridation goes against 'their God given rights'. Why don't you grow up? WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 0

7:39am Thu 27 Mar 14

bigfella777 says...

You Dont need teeth to eat McDonalds anyway, they can just suck it down when they are older.
You Dont need teeth to eat McDonalds anyway, they can just suck it down when they are older. bigfella777
  • Score: -1

8:48pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
,,

PHE have fed a PC with all their best Toxic Waste/Fluoridation results put them up against all their worst none Fluoridation results clicked a mouse and come up with Mass Fluoridation..

That's Disturbing.. PHE is advocating Mass Fluoridation on finding 11% less GENERAL tooth decay for 12-year-olds when Toxic waste/fluoride is added to drinking water

In June 2011 we were promised.. in the area to be fluoridated in and around Southampton, the number of children’s teeth affected by decay will fall – probably by between about 30% and 50%.


http://tinyurl.com/l



aqdklh




IN MAY 2013... ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR STEPHEN PECKHAM.

The level of dental decay in Southampton among five year old children is the lowest it has ever been.

MORE CHILDREN ARE CARIES FREE THAN EVER BEFORE, UP TO 40 % LOWER THEN JUST A FEW YEARS AGO.

70% of Southampton's children do not have any dental disease what's so ever.

-

http://www.youtube.c



om/watch?v=1LglU4uUJ



R4




If PHE fed a PC with its 11% cut in GENERAL tooth decay, put it up against Southampton's 40 % cut in tooth decay and clicked on a mouse.. it would come up with Mass Resignations for PHE




,,
,,


Birmingham's dentists carry out dental extraction's on 5,475 children a year... 11x Southampton's extraction rate.


If you believe PHE that could of been 10,950... 22x Southampton's extraction rate.


Odd when you think Birmingham has only 4x Southampton's population?


-


UNITED COMMUNITIES OF SOUTHAMPTON

Press Release to all Media Outlets

13 JAN 2013

United Communities of Southampton Statement on fluoridation

We firmly believe that it is our GOD given right, and responsibility, to choose what medications and food we consume .

Whilst we understand the plight of those suffering from tooth decay; and our hearts go out to all those affected .We most firmly do NOT support the addition of hydrofluosilicic acid commonly referred to as fluoride to our water to address this issue .

There is no good science to show that fluoridation is effective in reducing tooth decay, nor is there good evidence to prove that it is safe .

In fact, we have solid PROOF that fluoridating the water is both ineffective and dangerous - to the health of humans and to Nature too . IN BIRMINGHAM THE WATER HAS BEEN FLUORIDATED FOR SOME TIME; DESPITE THIS, BIRMINGHAM IS STILL CARRYING OUT DENTAL EXTRACTIONS ON 15 CHILDREN PER DAY UNDER GENERAL ANAESTHETIC.

Dr Dean Burke , chief scientist at the National Cancer Institute (USA) , stated under oath at a Congressional hearing 'Nothing causes or makes cancer explode faster in the body than fluoride.'Dr Burke calculated that adding fluoride to the water would increase the cancer rate by at least 10%. No-one has challenged his figures.

In 2007 the American Dental Association warned parents not to make up formula milk with fluoridated water. In Southampton the reckless SHA has deemed any such warning as unnecessary.

We have many , many concerns about the safety of ingesting an accumulative poison ; there are too many to list here .You need to understand that very few medical or dental 'professionals' are fully aware of the toxicity of fluoride.

But fundamentally, the enforced medication by means of fluoridation is absolutely against our religious beliefs and is an insult to our Freedom. We feel most strongly that this is breaking the Law of the land. You do NOT have our consent to force our community to consume this awful toxin.

Furthermore we have PROVEN methods that will safely and significantly reduce tooth decay , if not entirely eradicate this disease. We would very much like to share these proven measures with our communities and health authorities alike. Therefore we most strongly urge you to 'cease and desist' with any plans to fluoridate our drinking water .

We urge you to meet with us in the near future so that we may work together to resolve this issue.

For further info contact organising members of UCS

Dr Zac Cox (Dentist), Mr Harjap Singh, Mr Ziarat Hussain, Mr Arshad Sharif, Mr Prithipal Singh Roath – p.singhroath@hotmail


.co.uk




,,
,,


Re: Birmingham's dentists carry out dental extraction's on 5,475 children a year... 11x Southampton's extractions..



Fluoridated since 1964.. LOTS of Solihull's ( Birmingham ) youngsters have cavities!




CHILDREN SET TO BE TARGETED IN A BID TO BOOST DENTAL HEALTH

By HANNAH JENNINGS PARRY.

16 Feb 2013.

A DENTIST from Solihull, is offering special children's clinics AFTER HAVING TO TREAT "LOTS" OF LOCAL YOUNGSTERS FOR FILLINGS BEFORE THEY EVEN HAVE ADULT TEETH.

Satinder and Joanna Kelley, owners of Dickens Heath surgery, Heath Dental, said childhood cavities were such an issue, they were now offering foaming fluoride treatment Flairesse, to help repair cavities in youngsters' pearly whites.


http://www.zetadenta

l.co.uk/article-626-

Dental-Health-Month-

for-Children.html




PHE say 500 children in the (Southampton) region need to have teeth extracted under general anaesthetic due to tooth decay


Surely that can't be the same 500 children they quoted back in June 2011?


http://tinyurl.com/l

aqdklh




,,
,,


WalkingOnAWire says...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


I have no reason to doubt you, so I'll agree with you on the 2011 census figure of 27,200 Children...

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 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 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 Posing?.. 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]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: ,, PHE have fed a PC with all their best Toxic Waste/Fluoridation results put them up against all their worst none Fluoridation results clicked a mouse and come up with Mass Fluoridation.. That's Disturbing.. PHE is advocating Mass Fluoridation on finding 11% less GENERAL tooth decay for 12-year-olds when Toxic waste/fluoride is added to drinking water In June 2011 we were promised.. in the area to be fluoridated in and around Southampton, the number of children’s teeth affected by decay will fall – probably by between about 30% and 50%. http://tinyurl.com/l aqdklh IN MAY 2013... ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR STEPHEN PECKHAM. The level of dental decay in Southampton among five year old children is the lowest it has ever been. MORE CHILDREN ARE CARIES FREE THAN EVER BEFORE, UP TO 40 % LOWER THEN JUST A FEW YEARS AGO. 70% of Southampton's children do not have any dental disease what's so ever. - http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=1LglU4uUJ R4 If PHE fed a PC with its 11% cut in GENERAL tooth decay, put it up against Southampton's 40 % cut in tooth decay and clicked on a mouse.. it would come up with Mass Resignations for PHE ,,[/p][/quote],, Birmingham's dentists carry out dental extraction's on 5,475 children a year... 11x Southampton's extraction rate. If you believe PHE that could of been 10,950... 22x Southampton's extraction rate. Odd when you think Birmingham has only 4x Southampton's population? - UNITED COMMUNITIES OF SOUTHAMPTON Press Release to all Media Outlets 13 JAN 2013 United Communities of Southampton Statement on fluoridation We firmly believe that it is our GOD given right, and responsibility, to choose what medications and food we consume . Whilst we understand the plight of those suffering from tooth decay; and our hearts go out to all those affected .We most firmly do NOT support the addition of hydrofluosilicic acid commonly referred to as fluoride to our water to address this issue . There is no good science to show that fluoridation is effective in reducing tooth decay, nor is there good evidence to prove that it is safe . In fact, we have solid PROOF that fluoridating the water is both ineffective and dangerous - to the health of humans and to Nature too . IN BIRMINGHAM THE WATER HAS BEEN FLUORIDATED FOR SOME TIME; DESPITE THIS, BIRMINGHAM IS STILL CARRYING OUT DENTAL EXTRACTIONS ON 15 CHILDREN PER DAY UNDER GENERAL ANAESTHETIC. Dr Dean Burke , chief scientist at the National Cancer Institute (USA) , stated under oath at a Congressional hearing 'Nothing causes or makes cancer explode faster in the body than fluoride.'Dr Burke calculated that adding fluoride to the water would increase the cancer rate by at least 10%. No-one has challenged his figures. In 2007 the American Dental Association warned parents not to make up formula milk with fluoridated water. In Southampton the reckless SHA has deemed any such warning as unnecessary. We have many , many concerns about the safety of ingesting an accumulative poison ; there are too many to list here .You need to understand that very few medical or dental 'professionals' are fully aware of the toxicity of fluoride. But fundamentally, the enforced medication by means of fluoridation is absolutely against our religious beliefs and is an insult to our Freedom. We feel most strongly that this is breaking the Law of the land. You do NOT have our consent to force our community to consume this awful toxin. Furthermore we have PROVEN methods that will safely and significantly reduce tooth decay , if not entirely eradicate this disease. We would very much like to share these proven measures with our communities and health authorities alike. Therefore we most strongly urge you to 'cease and desist' with any plans to fluoridate our drinking water . We urge you to meet with us in the near future so that we may work together to resolve this issue. For further info contact organising members of UCS Dr Zac Cox (Dentist), Mr Harjap Singh, Mr Ziarat Hussain, Mr Arshad Sharif, Mr Prithipal Singh Roath – p.singhroath@hotmail .co.uk ,,[/p][/quote],, Re: Birmingham's dentists carry out dental extraction's on 5,475 children a year... 11x Southampton's extractions.. Fluoridated since 1964.. LOTS of Solihull's ( Birmingham ) youngsters have cavities! CHILDREN SET TO BE TARGETED IN A BID TO BOOST DENTAL HEALTH By HANNAH JENNINGS PARRY. 16 Feb 2013. A DENTIST from Solihull, is offering special children's clinics AFTER HAVING TO TREAT "LOTS" OF LOCAL YOUNGSTERS FOR FILLINGS BEFORE THEY EVEN HAVE ADULT TEETH. Satinder and Joanna Kelley, owners of Dickens Heath surgery, Heath Dental, said childhood cavities were such an issue, they were now offering foaming fluoride treatment Flairesse, to help repair cavities in youngsters' pearly whites. http://www.zetadenta l.co.uk/article-626- Dental-Health-Month- for-Children.html PHE say 500 children in the (Southampton) region need to have teeth extracted under general anaesthetic due to tooth decay Surely that can't be the same 500 children they quoted back in June 2011? http://tinyurl.com/l aqdklh ,,[/p][/quote],, WalkingOnAWire says...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 I have no reason to doubt you, so I'll agree with you on the 2011 census figure of 27,200 Children... 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 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 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 Posing?.. 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

5:37am Fri 28 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
,,

PHE have fed a PC with all their best Toxic Waste/Fluoridation results put them up against all their worst none Fluoridation results clicked a mouse and come up with Mass Fluoridation..

That's Disturbing.. PHE is advocating Mass Fluoridation on finding 11% less GENERAL tooth decay for 12-year-olds when Toxic waste/fluoride is added to drinking water

In June 2011 we were promised.. in the area to be fluoridated in and around Southampton, the number of children’s teeth affected by decay will fall – probably by between about 30% and 50%.


http://tinyurl.com/l




aqdklh




IN MAY 2013... ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR STEPHEN PECKHAM.

The level of dental decay in Southampton among five year old children is the lowest it has ever been.

MORE CHILDREN ARE CARIES FREE THAN EVER BEFORE, UP TO 40 % LOWER THEN JUST A FEW YEARS AGO.

70% of Southampton's children do not have any dental disease what's so ever.

-

http://www.youtube.c




om/watch?v=1LglU4uUJ




R4




If PHE fed a PC with its 11% cut in GENERAL tooth decay, put it up against Southampton's 40 % cut in tooth decay and clicked on a mouse.. it would come up with Mass Resignations for PHE




,,
,,


Birmingham's dentists carry out dental extraction's on 5,475 children a year... 11x Southampton's extraction rate.


If you believe PHE that could of been 10,950... 22x Southampton's extraction rate.


Odd when you think Birmingham has only 4x Southampton's population?


-


UNITED COMMUNITIES OF SOUTHAMPTON

Press Release to all Media Outlets

13 JAN 2013

United Communities of Southampton Statement on fluoridation

We firmly believe that it is our GOD given right, and responsibility, to choose what medications and food we consume .

Whilst we understand the plight of those suffering from tooth decay; and our hearts go out to all those affected .We most firmly do NOT support the addition of hydrofluosilicic acid commonly referred to as fluoride to our water to address this issue .

There is no good science to show that fluoridation is effective in reducing tooth decay, nor is there good evidence to prove that it is safe .

In fact, we have solid PROOF that fluoridating the water is both ineffective and dangerous - to the health of humans and to Nature too . IN BIRMINGHAM THE WATER HAS BEEN FLUORIDATED FOR SOME TIME; DESPITE THIS, BIRMINGHAM IS STILL CARRYING OUT DENTAL EXTRACTIONS ON 15 CHILDREN PER DAY UNDER GENERAL ANAESTHETIC.

Dr Dean Burke , chief scientist at the National Cancer Institute (USA) , stated under oath at a Congressional hearing 'Nothing causes or makes cancer explode faster in the body than fluoride.'Dr Burke calculated that adding fluoride to the water would increase the cancer rate by at least 10%. No-one has challenged his figures.

In 2007 the American Dental Association warned parents not to make up formula milk with fluoridated water. In Southampton the reckless SHA has deemed any such warning as unnecessary.

We have many , many concerns about the safety of ingesting an accumulative poison ; there are too many to list here .You need to understand that very few medical or dental 'professionals' are fully aware of the toxicity of fluoride.

But fundamentally, the enforced medication by means of fluoridation is absolutely against our religious beliefs and is an insult to our Freedom. We feel most strongly that this is breaking the Law of the land. You do NOT have our consent to force our community to consume this awful toxin.

Furthermore we have PROVEN methods that will safely and significantly reduce tooth decay , if not entirely eradicate this disease. We would very much like to share these proven measures with our communities and health authorities alike. Therefore we most strongly urge you to 'cease and desist' with any plans to fluoridate our drinking water .

We urge you to meet with us in the near future so that we may work together to resolve this issue.

For further info contact organising members of UCS

Dr Zac Cox (Dentist), Mr Harjap Singh, Mr Ziarat Hussain, Mr Arshad Sharif, Mr Prithipal Singh Roath – p.singhroath@hotmail



.co.uk




,,
,,


Re: Birmingham's dentists carry out dental extraction's on 5,475 children a year... 11x Southampton's extractions..



Fluoridated since 1964.. LOTS of Solihull's ( Birmingham ) youngsters have cavities!




CHILDREN SET TO BE TARGETED IN A BID TO BOOST DENTAL HEALTH

By HANNAH JENNINGS PARRY.

16 Feb 2013.

A DENTIST from Solihull, is offering special children's clinics AFTER HAVING TO TREAT "LOTS" OF LOCAL YOUNGSTERS FOR FILLINGS BEFORE THEY EVEN HAVE ADULT TEETH.

Satinder and Joanna Kelley, owners of Dickens Heath surgery, Heath Dental, said childhood cavities were such an issue, they were now offering foaming fluoride treatment Flairesse, to help repair cavities in youngsters' pearly whites.


http://www.zetadenta


l.co.uk/article-626-


Dental-Health-Month-


for-Children.html




PHE say 500 children in the (Southampton) region need to have teeth extracted under general anaesthetic due to tooth decay


Surely that can't be the same 500 children they quoted back in June 2011?


http://tinyurl.com/l


aqdklh




,,
,,


WalkingOnAWire says...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


I have no reason to doubt you, so I'll agree with you on the 2011 census figure of 27,200 Children...

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 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 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 Posing?.. 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]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: ,, PHE have fed a PC with all their best Toxic Waste/Fluoridation results put them up against all their worst none Fluoridation results clicked a mouse and come up with Mass Fluoridation.. That's Disturbing.. PHE is advocating Mass Fluoridation on finding 11% less GENERAL tooth decay for 12-year-olds when Toxic waste/fluoride is added to drinking water In June 2011 we were promised.. in the area to be fluoridated in and around Southampton, the number of children’s teeth affected by decay will fall – probably by between about 30% and 50%. http://tinyurl.com/l aqdklh IN MAY 2013... ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR STEPHEN PECKHAM. The level of dental decay in Southampton among five year old children is the lowest it has ever been. MORE CHILDREN ARE CARIES FREE THAN EVER BEFORE, UP TO 40 % LOWER THEN JUST A FEW YEARS AGO. 70% of Southampton's children do not have any dental disease what's so ever. - http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=1LglU4uUJ R4 If PHE fed a PC with its 11% cut in GENERAL tooth decay, put it up against Southampton's 40 % cut in tooth decay and clicked on a mouse.. it would come up with Mass Resignations for PHE ,,[/p][/quote],, Birmingham's dentists carry out dental extraction's on 5,475 children a year... 11x Southampton's extraction rate. If you believe PHE that could of been 10,950... 22x Southampton's extraction rate. Odd when you think Birmingham has only 4x Southampton's population? - UNITED COMMUNITIES OF SOUTHAMPTON Press Release to all Media Outlets 13 JAN 2013 United Communities of Southampton Statement on fluoridation We firmly believe that it is our GOD given right, and responsibility, to choose what medications and food we consume . Whilst we understand the plight of those suffering from tooth decay; and our hearts go out to all those affected .We most firmly do NOT support the addition of hydrofluosilicic acid commonly referred to as fluoride to our water to address this issue . There is no good science to show that fluoridation is effective in reducing tooth decay, nor is there good evidence to prove that it is safe . In fact, we have solid PROOF that fluoridating the water is both ineffective and dangerous - to the health of humans and to Nature too . IN BIRMINGHAM THE WATER HAS BEEN FLUORIDATED FOR SOME TIME; DESPITE THIS, BIRMINGHAM IS STILL CARRYING OUT DENTAL EXTRACTIONS ON 15 CHILDREN PER DAY UNDER GENERAL ANAESTHETIC. Dr Dean Burke , chief scientist at the National Cancer Institute (USA) , stated under oath at a Congressional hearing 'Nothing causes or makes cancer explode faster in the body than fluoride.'Dr Burke calculated that adding fluoride to the water would increase the cancer rate by at least 10%. No-one has challenged his figures. In 2007 the American Dental Association warned parents not to make up formula milk with fluoridated water. In Southampton the reckless SHA has deemed any such warning as unnecessary. We have many , many concerns about the safety of ingesting an accumulative poison ; there are too many to list here .You need to understand that very few medical or dental 'professionals' are fully aware of the toxicity of fluoride. But fundamentally, the enforced medication by means of fluoridation is absolutely against our religious beliefs and is an insult to our Freedom. We feel most strongly that this is breaking the Law of the land. You do NOT have our consent to force our community to consume this awful toxin. Furthermore we have PROVEN methods that will safely and significantly reduce tooth decay , if not entirely eradicate this disease. We would very much like to share these proven measures with our communities and health authorities alike. Therefore we most strongly urge you to 'cease and desist' with any plans to fluoridate our drinking water . We urge you to meet with us in the near future so that we may work together to resolve this issue. For further info contact organising members of UCS Dr Zac Cox (Dentist), Mr Harjap Singh, Mr Ziarat Hussain, Mr Arshad Sharif, Mr Prithipal Singh Roath – p.singhroath@hotmail .co.uk ,,[/p][/quote],, Re: Birmingham's dentists carry out dental extraction's on 5,475 children a year... 11x Southampton's extractions.. Fluoridated since 1964.. LOTS of Solihull's ( Birmingham ) youngsters have cavities! CHILDREN SET TO BE TARGETED IN A BID TO BOOST DENTAL HEALTH By HANNAH JENNINGS PARRY. 16 Feb 2013. A DENTIST from Solihull, is offering special children's clinics AFTER HAVING TO TREAT "LOTS" OF LOCAL YOUNGSTERS FOR FILLINGS BEFORE THEY EVEN HAVE ADULT TEETH. Satinder and Joanna Kelley, owners of Dickens Heath surgery, Heath Dental, said childhood cavities were such an issue, they were now offering foaming fluoride treatment Flairesse, to help repair cavities in youngsters' pearly whites. http://www.zetadenta l.co.uk/article-626- Dental-Health-Month- for-Children.html PHE say 500 children in the (Southampton) region need to have teeth extracted under general anaesthetic due to tooth decay Surely that can't be the same 500 children they quoted back in June 2011? http://tinyurl.com/l aqdklh ,,[/p][/quote],, WalkingOnAWire says...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 I have no reason to doubt you, so I'll agree with you on the 2011 census figure of 27,200 Children... 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 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 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 Posing?.. 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: 1

9:49pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
,,

PHE have fed a PC with all their best Toxic Waste/Fluoridation results put them up against all their worst none Fluoridation results clicked a mouse and come up with Mass Fluoridation..

That's Disturbing.. PHE is advocating Mass Fluoridation on finding 11% less GENERAL tooth decay for 12-year-olds when Toxic waste/fluoride is added to drinking water

In June 2011 we were promised.. in the area to be fluoridated in and around Southampton, the number of children’s teeth affected by decay will fall – probably by between about 30% and 50%.


http://tinyurl.com/l





aqdklh




IN MAY 2013... ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR STEPHEN PECKHAM.

The level of dental decay in Southampton among five year old children is the lowest it has ever been.

MORE CHILDREN ARE CARIES FREE THAN EVER BEFORE, UP TO 40 % LOWER THEN JUST A FEW YEARS AGO.

70% of Southampton's children do not have any dental disease what's so ever.

-

http://www.youtube.c





om/watch?v=1LglU4uUJ





R4




If PHE fed a PC with its 11% cut in GENERAL tooth decay, put it up against Southampton's 40 % cut in tooth decay and clicked on a mouse.. it would come up with Mass Resignations for PHE




,,
,,


Birmingham's dentists carry out dental extraction's on 5,475 children a year... 11x Southampton's extraction rate.


If you believe PHE that could of been 10,950... 22x Southampton's extraction rate.


Odd when you think Birmingham has only 4x Southampton's population?


-


UNITED COMMUNITIES OF SOUTHAMPTON

Press Release to all Media Outlets

13 JAN 2013

United Communities of Southampton Statement on fluoridation

We firmly believe that it is our GOD given right, and responsibility, to choose what medications and food we consume .

Whilst we understand the plight of those suffering from tooth decay; and our hearts go out to all those affected .We most firmly do NOT support the addition of hydrofluosilicic acid commonly referred to as fluoride to our water to address this issue .

There is no good science to show that fluoridation is effective in reducing tooth decay, nor is there good evidence to prove that it is safe .

In fact, we have solid PROOF that fluoridating the water is both ineffective and dangerous - to the health of humans and to Nature too . IN BIRMINGHAM THE WATER HAS BEEN FLUORIDATED FOR SOME TIME; DESPITE THIS, BIRMINGHAM IS STILL CARRYING OUT DENTAL EXTRACTIONS ON 15 CHILDREN PER DAY UNDER GENERAL ANAESTHETIC.

Dr Dean Burke , chief scientist at the National Cancer Institute (USA) , stated under oath at a Congressional hearing 'Nothing causes or makes cancer explode faster in the body than fluoride.'Dr Burke calculated that adding fluoride to the water would increase the cancer rate by at least 10%. No-one has challenged his figures.

In 2007 the American Dental Association warned parents not to make up formula milk with fluoridated water. In Southampton the reckless SHA has deemed any such warning as unnecessary.

We have many , many concerns about the safety of ingesting an accumulative poison ; there are too many to list here .You need to understand that very few medical or dental 'professionals' are fully aware of the toxicity of fluoride.

But fundamentally, the enforced medication by means of fluoridation is absolutely against our religious beliefs and is an insult to our Freedom. We feel most strongly that this is breaking the Law of the land. You do NOT have our consent to force our community to consume this awful toxin.

Furthermore we have PROVEN methods that will safely and significantly reduce tooth decay , if not entirely eradicate this disease. We would very much like to share these proven measures with our communities and health authorities alike. Therefore we most strongly urge you to 'cease and desist' with any plans to fluoridate our drinking water .

We urge you to meet with us in the near future so that we may work together to resolve this issue.

For further info contact organising members of UCS

Dr Zac Cox (Dentist), Mr Harjap Singh, Mr Ziarat Hussain, Mr Arshad Sharif, Mr Prithipal Singh Roath – p.singhroath@hotmail




.co.uk




,,
,,


Re: Birmingham's dentists carry out dental extraction's on 5,475 children a year... 11x Southampton's extractions..



Fluoridated since 1964.. LOTS of Solihull's ( Birmingham ) youngsters have cavities!




CHILDREN SET TO BE TARGETED IN A BID TO BOOST DENTAL HEALTH

By HANNAH JENNINGS PARRY.

16 Feb 2013.

A DENTIST from Solihull, is offering special children's clinics AFTER HAVING TO TREAT "LOTS" OF LOCAL YOUNGSTERS FOR FILLINGS BEFORE THEY EVEN HAVE ADULT TEETH.

Satinder and Joanna Kelley, owners of Dickens Heath surgery, Heath Dental, said childhood cavities were such an issue, they were now offering foaming fluoride treatment Flairesse, to help repair cavities in youngsters' pearly whites.


http://www.zetadenta



l.co.uk/article-626-



Dental-Health-Month-



for-Children.html




PHE say 500 children in the (Southampton) region need to have teeth extracted under general anaesthetic due to tooth decay


Surely that can't be the same 500 children they quoted back in June 2011?


http://tinyurl.com/l



aqdklh




,,
,,


WalkingOnAWire says...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


I have no reason to doubt you, so I'll agree with you on the 2011 census figure of 27,200 Children...

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 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 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 Posing?.. Fluoridated Birmingham has the highest Infant mortality rate in the UK, worse than in Cuba and on a par with Latvia and Chile.

-

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

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



,,
,,

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


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


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


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

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

-

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

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


..
,,


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

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

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


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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

http://tinyurl.com/l
aqdklh



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

Nursery toothbrushing saves £6m in dental costs

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




,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: ,, PHE have fed a PC with all their best Toxic Waste/Fluoridation results put them up against all their worst none Fluoridation results clicked a mouse and come up with Mass Fluoridation.. That's Disturbing.. PHE is advocating Mass Fluoridation on finding 11% less GENERAL tooth decay for 12-year-olds when Toxic waste/fluoride is added to drinking water In June 2011 we were promised.. in the area to be fluoridated in and around Southampton, the number of children’s teeth affected by decay will fall – probably by between about 30% and 50%. http://tinyurl.com/l aqdklh IN MAY 2013... ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR STEPHEN PECKHAM. The level of dental decay in Southampton among five year old children is the lowest it has ever been. MORE CHILDREN ARE CARIES FREE THAN EVER BEFORE, UP TO 40 % LOWER THEN JUST A FEW YEARS AGO. 70% of Southampton's children do not have any dental disease what's so ever. - http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=1LglU4uUJ R4 If PHE fed a PC with its 11% cut in GENERAL tooth decay, put it up against Southampton's 40 % cut in tooth decay and clicked on a mouse.. it would come up with Mass Resignations for PHE ,,[/p][/quote],, Birmingham's dentists carry out dental extraction's on 5,475 children a year... 11x Southampton's extraction rate. If you believe PHE that could of been 10,950... 22x Southampton's extraction rate. Odd when you think Birmingham has only 4x Southampton's population? - UNITED COMMUNITIES OF SOUTHAMPTON Press Release to all Media Outlets 13 JAN 2013 United Communities of Southampton Statement on fluoridation We firmly believe that it is our GOD given right, and responsibility, to choose what medications and food we consume . Whilst we understand the plight of those suffering from tooth decay; and our hearts go out to all those affected .We most firmly do NOT support the addition of hydrofluosilicic acid commonly referred to as fluoride to our water to address this issue . There is no good science to show that fluoridation is effective in reducing tooth decay, nor is there good evidence to prove that it is safe . In fact, we have solid PROOF that fluoridating the water is both ineffective and dangerous - to the health of humans and to Nature too . IN BIRMINGHAM THE WATER HAS BEEN FLUORIDATED FOR SOME TIME; DESPITE THIS, BIRMINGHAM IS STILL CARRYING OUT DENTAL EXTRACTIONS ON 15 CHILDREN PER DAY UNDER GENERAL ANAESTHETIC. Dr Dean Burke , chief scientist at the National Cancer Institute (USA) , stated under oath at a Congressional hearing 'Nothing causes or makes cancer explode faster in the body than fluoride.'Dr Burke calculated that adding fluoride to the water would increase the cancer rate by at least 10%. No-one has challenged his figures. In 2007 the American Dental Association warned parents not to make up formula milk with fluoridated water. In Southampton the reckless SHA has deemed any such warning as unnecessary. We have many , many concerns about the safety of ingesting an accumulative poison ; there are too many to list here .You need to understand that very few medical or dental 'professionals' are fully aware of the toxicity of fluoride. But fundamentally, the enforced medication by means of fluoridation is absolutely against our religious beliefs and is an insult to our Freedom. We feel most strongly that this is breaking the Law of the land. You do NOT have our consent to force our community to consume this awful toxin. Furthermore we have PROVEN methods that will safely and significantly reduce tooth decay , if not entirely eradicate this disease. We would very much like to share these proven measures with our communities and health authorities alike. Therefore we most strongly urge you to 'cease and desist' with any plans to fluoridate our drinking water . We urge you to meet with us in the near future so that we may work together to resolve this issue. For further info contact organising members of UCS Dr Zac Cox (Dentist), Mr Harjap Singh, Mr Ziarat Hussain, Mr Arshad Sharif, Mr Prithipal Singh Roath – p.singhroath@hotmail .co.uk ,,[/p][/quote],, Re: Birmingham's dentists carry out dental extraction's on 5,475 children a year... 11x Southampton's extractions.. Fluoridated since 1964.. LOTS of Solihull's ( Birmingham ) youngsters have cavities! CHILDREN SET TO BE TARGETED IN A BID TO BOOST DENTAL HEALTH By HANNAH JENNINGS PARRY. 16 Feb 2013. A DENTIST from Solihull, is offering special children's clinics AFTER HAVING TO TREAT "LOTS" OF LOCAL YOUNGSTERS FOR FILLINGS BEFORE THEY EVEN HAVE ADULT TEETH. Satinder and Joanna Kelley, owners of Dickens Heath surgery, Heath Dental, said childhood cavities were such an issue, they were now offering foaming fluoride treatment Flairesse, to help repair cavities in youngsters' pearly whites. http://www.zetadenta l.co.uk/article-626- Dental-Health-Month- for-Children.html PHE say 500 children in the (Southampton) region need to have teeth extracted under general anaesthetic due to tooth decay Surely that can't be the same 500 children they quoted back in June 2011? http://tinyurl.com/l aqdklh ,,[/p][/quote],, WalkingOnAWire says...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 I have no reason to doubt you, so I'll agree with you on the 2011 census figure of 27,200 Children... 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 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 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 Posing?.. Fluoridated Birmingham has the highest Infant mortality rate in the UK, worse than in Cuba and on a par with Latvia and Chile. - At the end of the day however you move the figures up or down in favour of fluoridation.. it would be more cost effective to give them all a free lifetime supply of dentures. Thankfully there are better/safer ways to fight tooth decay in low-income families, the Childsmile program has shown that large reductions in tooth decay can be achieved in Children from low-income families by teaching tooth brushing in nursery schools and educating parents on better diets ,,[/p][/quote],, I'll make do with the below figures until I can find out exactly how many Totton, Eastleigh and Southampton 12-year-old's PHE is targeting The below data relates to births recorded by Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust (SUHT) Includes births to mothers with a home postcode within Southampton. does not include births to mothers with a Southampton postcode but the birth occurs within a loction not covered by SUHT 2009/10 Live Births in Southampton shot up to 3,224 from 2,816 in 2006/7 Taking the higher figure of the two, 3,224 x 12 yrs = 38,688 Children (using Prof Peckham's and PHE's stats )... over a 12-year period Southampton will have 1,064 less 12-year old Children with GENERAL tooth decay. If 12 yrs of Fluoridation soul purpose is to reduce 12-year old Children's GENERAL tooth decay by 11% it would be a crime on biblical proportions. - Does that small 11% benefit tail off?.. PHE's report mentions Hip fractures, Kidney stones, Cancers etc, but fails to mention any benefits for Teenagers Fluoridation... Zero statistical benefits for Teenagers or detrimental? ..[/p][/quote],, PHEs Best Case Scenario.. after 12 yrs of Toxic Waste/Fluoridation only 1,276 Children per year with less GENERAL tooth decay   (1) ACCORDING to Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust (SUHT) 2009/10 Live Births in Southampton numbered.. 3,224   (2) ACCORDING to Prof Stephen Peckham 70% of those 3,224 babies will grow up dental disease free.. that leaves 967 babies who may at some time have a dental disease issues (3) ACCORDING to PHEs Best Case Scenario.. they found 11% less GENERAL tooth decay when Toxic Waste/Fluoride is added to drinking water... 11% of 967 leaves 106 babies in the first year with less GENERAL ( not dental disease free for life ) tooth decay   SOUTHAMPTON'S POSSIBLE 12 YEAR CHURN RATE GIVEN 2009/10 LIVE BIRTHS IN SOUTHAMPTON NUMBERED.. 3,224   1 yr.. (1) 3,224 (2) 967 (3) 106 2 yrs.. (1) 6,448 (2) 1,935 (3) 212 3 yrs.. (1) 9,672 (2) 2,902 (3) 319 4 yrs.. (1) 12,896 (2) 3,869 (3) 425 5 yrs.. (1) 16,120 (2) 4,836 (3) 532 6 yrs.. (1) 19,344 (2) 5,804 (3) 638 7 yrs.. (1) 22,568 (2) 6,771 (3) 745 8 yrs.. (1) 25,792 (2) 7,738 (3) 852 9 yrs.. (1) 29,016 (2) 8,705 (3) 957 10 yrs.. (1) 32,240 (2) 9,672 (3) 1,063 11 yrs.. (1) 35,464 (2) 10,640 (3) 1,170 12 yrs.. (1) 38,688 (2) 11,607 (3) 1,276 Using PHEs best case scenario.. after 12 yrs of Toxic Waste/Fluoridation 1,276 Children per year with less GENERAL tooth decay.. Its hardly the 50% Children free of tooth decay promised back in June 2011... 50% of 11,607 equals 5,803 Children tooth decay free? http://tinyurl.com/l aqdklh Bring on the Childsmile programme.. supervised toothbrushing every day. Nursery toothbrushing saves £6m in dental costs http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-scotland-24 880356 ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 2

2:39pm 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: 2

2:32pm Thu 3 Apr 14

dalesully2 says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
BeyondImagination wrote:
Many thousands out of 200,000 population. What is the basis of your statistics?

In the end tooth decay will be reduced by better parental care. A reduction in their IQ as a result of fluoridation will lead to less care and more tooth decay,
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. And that benefit carries on cumulatively, year after year, protecting older children as well. It's a huge health benefit. I agree 100% with you, that it shouldn't be seen as being an alternative to parental care, but as an addition to it. My point remains that the children themselves are the ones that need the help. It's not their fault for having bad parents. That can't be fixed overnight but fluoridising water will have an immediate and beneficial impact. I am aware of no evidence at all that fluoridation at the levels being discussed here have been demonstrated to impact on IQ. If you have some, I'd be interested to see it - thanks.
Why do the pro-fluoridation lot always mention fluoride is safe at their levels when they never take into account other daily fluoride intake.
Fruit, veg and juice drinks (pesticides), swallowing toothpaste residue once, twice or more a day, fluoride in tea, if its in the water you will also be absorbing fluoride whilst having a bath through the skin.
Thousands will be getting beyond the so called safe level and especially the young children you are apparently trying to help.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: Many thousands out of 200,000 population. What is the basis of your statistics? In the end tooth decay will be reduced by better parental care. A reduction in their IQ as a result of fluoridation will lead to less care and more tooth decay,[/p][/quote]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. And that benefit carries on cumulatively, year after year, protecting older children as well. It's a huge health benefit. I agree 100% with you, that it shouldn't be seen as being an alternative to parental care, but as an addition to it. My point remains that the children themselves are the ones that need the help. It's not their fault for having bad parents. That can't be fixed overnight but fluoridising water will have an immediate and beneficial impact. I am aware of no evidence at all that fluoridation at the levels being discussed here have been demonstrated to impact on IQ. If you have some, I'd be interested to see it - thanks.[/p][/quote]Why do the pro-fluoridation lot always mention fluoride is safe at their levels when they never take into account other daily fluoride intake. Fruit, veg and juice drinks (pesticides), swallowing toothpaste residue once, twice or more a day, fluoride in tea, if its in the water you will also be absorbing fluoride whilst having a bath through the skin. Thousands will be getting beyond the so called safe level and especially the young children you are apparently trying to help. dalesully2
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Thu 3 Apr 14

dalesully2 says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
"based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.
We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?
The study is from dental consultants, notoriously pro-fluoridation. It might look good but the study fits the 'water fluoridation' agenda. This isn't peer reviewed or an independent study and this was obvious when you read the inflated statistics. It might be worth seeing who is behind the Public Health England Study before you take it as gospel.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: "based on worldwide evidence that it is safe and effective", no, it's based on wanting to copy the US, China doesn't fluoridate their water, 99% of mainland Europe doesn't, Japan doesn't, Iceland and Greenland don't, India REMOVES Fluoride from the water, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark don't Fluoridate, more than HALF of the global population says NO, it's a bad thing and the rates of tooth decay for those countries that don't fluoridate, have been decreasing at the same rate as when they did Fluoridate before they banned it, this is due to better education on dental hygeine, much cheaper and far more effective than forcing people to consume poison.[/p][/quote]We talked about 'poison' on an earlier article Ginger, but here you are using the word again out of context. Fluoride is NOT a poison at the minuscule levels it is needed to benefit dental health. There are lots of places in the world where fluoride occurs naturally in the water at far higher levels than what's being proposed, without any ill-effects. Can I ask you - have you actually read the study by Public Health England?[/p][/quote]The study is from dental consultants, notoriously pro-fluoridation. It might look good but the study fits the 'water fluoridation' agenda. This isn't peer reviewed or an independent study and this was obvious when you read the inflated statistics. It might be worth seeing who is behind the Public Health England Study before you take it as gospel. dalesully2
  • Score: 0

3:35pm Thu 3 Apr 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

dalesully2 wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
BeyondImagination wrote:
Many thousands out of 200,000 population. What is the basis of your statistics?

In the end tooth decay will be reduced by better parental care. A reduction in their IQ as a result of fluoridation will lead to less care and more tooth decay,
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. And that benefit carries on cumulatively, year after year, protecting older children as well. It's a huge health benefit. I agree 100% with you, that it shouldn't be seen as being an alternative to parental care, but as an addition to it. My point remains that the children themselves are the ones that need the help. It's not their fault for having bad parents. That can't be fixed overnight but fluoridising water will have an immediate and beneficial impact. I am aware of no evidence at all that fluoridation at the levels being discussed here have been demonstrated to impact on IQ. If you have some, I'd be interested to see it - thanks.
Why do the pro-fluoridation lot always mention fluoride is safe at their levels when they never take into account other daily fluoride intake.
Fruit, veg and juice drinks (pesticides), swallowing toothpaste residue once, twice or more a day, fluoride in tea, if its in the water you will also be absorbing fluoride whilst having a bath through the skin.
Thousands will be getting beyond the so called safe level and especially the young children you are apparently trying to help.
So substantiate that point. Show some evidence of harm. In peer-reviewed studies, which you rightly say are important. I'm perfectly open to evidence - just not to conjecture.
[quote][p][bold]dalesully2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: Many thousands out of 200,000 population. What is the basis of your statistics? In the end tooth decay will be reduced by better parental care. A reduction in their IQ as a result of fluoridation will lead to less care and more tooth decay,[/p][/quote]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. And that benefit carries on cumulatively, year after year, protecting older children as well. It's a huge health benefit. I agree 100% with you, that it shouldn't be seen as being an alternative to parental care, but as an addition to it. My point remains that the children themselves are the ones that need the help. It's not their fault for having bad parents. That can't be fixed overnight but fluoridising water will have an immediate and beneficial impact. I am aware of no evidence at all that fluoridation at the levels being discussed here have been demonstrated to impact on IQ. If you have some, I'd be interested to see it - thanks.[/p][/quote]Why do the pro-fluoridation lot always mention fluoride is safe at their levels when they never take into account other daily fluoride intake. Fruit, veg and juice drinks (pesticides), swallowing toothpaste residue once, twice or more a day, fluoride in tea, if its in the water you will also be absorbing fluoride whilst having a bath through the skin. Thousands will be getting beyond the so called safe level and especially the young children you are apparently trying to help.[/p][/quote]So substantiate that point. Show some evidence of harm. In peer-reviewed studies, which you rightly say are important. I'm perfectly open to evidence - just not to conjecture. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 0

2:47pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Dan Soton says...

,,,

Where's Johnson's £42 million gone?


LABOUR'S SICK LEGACY.

In 2008 Labour’s genial Secretary of Health, Alan Johnson, awarded £14 million a year for three years to the Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) . The money was to be used exclusively to fund new fluoridation schemes, or to carry out feasibility studies on any new proposals for such projects.

But SHAs are not allowed to hold capital allocations, so with the collaboration of Primary care trusts (PCTs) some creative accounting allowed the money to be diverted to prop up ailing existing fluoridation schemes.

To launder Johnson’s millions, the Capital allowance is first transferred to PCTs, who convert it to Revenue. They then pass this back to the SHAs, who have then are able to switch it into repairing defective existing fluoridation equipment. This is in direct defiance of Johnson’s quite specific intention.

--------------


Wherever the money is now.. A UK Childsmile programme could be saving millions in dental costs



NURSERY TOOTHBRUSHING SAVES £6m IN DENTAL COSTS

10 November 2013 Last updated at 01:03

A scheme to encourage nursery children to brush their teeth has saved more than £6m in dental costs, according to a new study.

Childsmile involves staff at all Scottish nurseries offering free supervised toothbrushing every day.

Glasgow researchers found that the scheme had reduced the cost of treating dental disease in five-year-olds by more than half between 2001 and 2010.


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




,,
,,, Where's Johnson's £42 million gone? LABOUR'S SICK LEGACY. In 2008 Labour’s genial Secretary of Health, Alan Johnson, awarded £14 million a year for three years to the Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) . The money was to be used exclusively to fund new fluoridation schemes, or to carry out feasibility studies on any new proposals for such projects. But SHAs are not allowed to hold capital allocations, so with the collaboration of Primary care trusts (PCTs) some creative accounting allowed the money to be diverted to prop up ailing existing fluoridation schemes. To launder Johnson’s millions, the Capital allowance is first transferred to PCTs, who convert it to Revenue. They then pass this back to the SHAs, who have then are able to switch it into repairing defective existing fluoridation equipment. This is in direct defiance of Johnson’s quite specific intention. -------------- Wherever the money is now.. A UK Childsmile programme could be saving millions in dental costs NURSERY TOOTHBRUSHING SAVES £6m IN DENTAL COSTS 10 November 2013 Last updated at 01:03 A scheme to encourage nursery children to brush their teeth has saved more than £6m in dental costs, according to a new study. Childsmile involves staff at all Scottish nurseries offering free supervised toothbrushing every day. Glasgow researchers found that the scheme had reduced the cost of treating dental disease in five-year-olds by more than half between 2001 and 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-scotland-24 880356 ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

2:49pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Watch this and see the truth.

https://www.youtube.

com/watch?annotation

_id=annotation_42880

9033&feature=iv&src_

vid=6N2E9G-LV6s&v=na

32dT2gfd0#t=1s
Watch this and see the truth. https://www.youtube. com/watch?annotation _id=annotation_42880 9033&feature=iv&src_ vid=6N2E9G-LV6s&v=na 32dT2gfd0#t=1s Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree