Surely, with Southern Water being the supplier, a customer has a right to know the contents of what he is buying, and the Water authority has a legal obligation to give an accurate and true response.
I wonder what the outcome would be if a customer refused to pay his bill on the grounds that the water board is supplying a customer with something he does not want.
Could make for an interesting legal precedent.

The non-payment of a water bill by an anti-fluoride protestor has indeed made an interesting legal precedent, but one which might have been anticipated. The Dept of Health has indemnified all water suppliers against just such an event; and including damage to health, household plumbing etc. The tab will ultimately be picked up by the taxpayer because a full-blown court case against a bill defaulter could cause the DoH or one of its quangos like the Drinking Water Inspectorate to have to answer questions in public it would rather not answer.
This refusal to say which areas will be fluoridated is only a shadow of what could follow.

This is a full blown scandel, sinister in its undertones. Has anyone got the ability to offer a hall where we can meet to plan some course of action that will highlight outrage this is generating amongst the Southampton public?

Everyone I have spoken to in my own time is 100% against this, to the man. I would suggest any pro voices on here are in some involved in benefitting from this outrageous proposal.

Southern Water says it is referring all requests for information on the proposed fluoridation scheme to South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA), because it doesn't want to run the risk of giving out conflicting details.

The truth is the truth, except when there are dirty tricks going on. Why should their be different versions of the details? I smell a rat!

Tate Durden wrote:
This is a full blown scandel, sinister in its undertones. Has anyone got the ability to offer a hall where we can meet to plan some course of action that will highlight outrage this is generating amongst the Southampton public? Everyone I have spoken to in my own time is 100% against this, to the man. I would suggest any pro voices on here are in some involved in benefitting from this outrageous proposal.

I think we should start by contacting the editor of the Echo to ask why our local paper is publishing propaganda such as the pictures it has published today when it can clearly see the residents of Southampton are largely against it.

Absolutley disgusting.

Christoff wrote:

Tate Durden wrote: This is a full blown scandel, sinister in its undertones. Has anyone got the ability to offer a hall where we can meet to plan some course of action that will highlight outrage this is generating amongst the Southampton public? Everyone I have spoken to in my own time is 100% against this, to the man. I would suggest any pro voices on here are in some involved in benefitting from this outrageous proposal.

I think we should start by contacting the editor of the Echo to ask why our local paper is publishing propaganda such as the pictures it has published today when it can clearly see the residents of Southampton are largely against it. Absolutley disgusting.

If it was one sided propaganda, then they wouldn't have printed this story, would they?

This is hardly the sort of thing they would print if they wanted fluoride in the water...

But of course, reactionary conspiracy theories are much more fun, aren't they?

Adrian Smith wrote:

Christoff wrote:

Tate Durden wrote: This is a full blown scandel, sinister in its undertones. Has anyone got the ability to offer a hall where we can meet to plan some course of action that will highlight outrage this is generating amongst the Southampton public? Everyone I have spoken to in my own time is 100% against this, to the man. I would suggest any pro voices on here are in some involved in benefitting from this outrageous proposal.

I think we should start by contacting the editor of the Echo to ask why our local paper is publishing propaganda such as the pictures it has published today when it can clearly see the residents of Southampton are largely against it. Absolutley disgusting.

If it was one sided propaganda, then they wouldn't have printed this story, would they? This is hardly the sort of thing they would print if they wanted fluoride in the water... But of course, reactionary conspiracy theories are much more fun, aren't they?

they are much more fun but I just feel the message is a little confusing for people that don't have the intelligence to look into it themselves.

If they do consult local residents, the lowest common denominator are bound to be targeted and they are bound to go: 'oh, yeah, I fink I rmemba that pic wit loads of manky teef innit, I vote for Floride'.

People will remember those images more than they will remember boring scientific evidence.

I don't believe Mr Murray would want to have fluoride added, he is an intelligent man but his readers are not (some of them anyway)

I see what you're saying Christoff, but you can't ignore things such as this just because they are more striking than the science.

If people can't look beyond things the 'lowest common denominator', then that's their problem.

The Echo have got loads of information on this site about fluoride, so they can't be blamed for favouring on side of the argument over another.

it was only a matter of time. the british public have got this bad habit of complaining, its now starting to become a nuisance. fluoridation is exactly what the masses need to be pacified - much like the nazis prison camp victims. how much opposition to the EU in 10 years time? will anyone care?

Fluoride is slow DEATH and makes your IQ drop. google it learn the truth.

My boss just happens to be a water quality expert. While you fight the good fight do this: Fill a jug with tap water and let it sit, uncovered, in your refrigerator overnight. The fluorine gas (and any residual chlorine left over from the treatment proccess) will dissipate.

Why do so many Americans comment on the Fluoride stories?

Yes,they are well aware of the fact that theirs is the only water available,and we have to pay whatever they decide,do with us as they please,a change is necessary,from Gordon Brown down

In case there is anyone reading this who doesn't understand what all the fuss is about. Flouride is known to be a toxin that affects the brain, permanently. Some US states have had it removed from the water supply. It is not about rotting teeth, it is about reducing memory span, pacifying the people, and Government control. Read up on the net and you will soon discover why the secrecy, the deceipt and the imposition. We are nearing the end time for freedom, and the worker ants will not be allowed to resist.

#######
#######

The Nazis had used fluoride to medicate concentration camp prisoners, which "medicine" made them more DOCILE, and which use today serves the exact same purpose--and not to prevent cavities ((by the way, topical - not systemic - use of it is said to prevent cavities, so why are we required to drink it)).

#######
#######

''But of course, reactionary conspiracy theories are much more fun, aren't they?''

Yeah sure it's good for you, have it you way, enjoy the brain damage.

Ta ra x

In some U.S. states, a state government law has mandated use of this poison in water supplies. In most communities, it is voted upon by the residents.
Is the WTO behind this scheme?

I read the comment by HPS of USA, saying that if you leave fluoride to stand it will dissipate.
Unfortunately this is not true. Chlorine can be removed by leaving water to stand or by boiling it off, but this does not happen with fluoride. If you boil the water then the fluoride just becomes more concentrated. It takes an expensive reverse osmosis or distillation unit to remove fluoride.

Other posters here have mentioned the EU. After what I read today, and linking it to other measures, there is one powerfully terrifying future in store for us. For one thing, anti-EU parties and organisations are to outlawed. Protest is to be outlawed. Traffic wardens are being handed new designations as community enforcement officers to take over the police's job. What will the police be doing? Military civillian enforcement apparently.

The following is the experience of a guy named Andy, a traffic warden...

"Some time later after Andy had been told to keep new cards that described new functions, the right to arrest, the right to enter private property, Andy met a police officer he knew from some years before. After a general chat among other wardens, the officer pulled Andy aside and said he wanted to speak in private.

The officer said that Andy should not breathe a word of what he was about to tell him, and he was only telling him the information because he was an old friend.

He said that for months he had been on 'special duties' coordinating a top secret operation, meeting with 'top brass' from the police and national and local government. This was happening all over the country, he said, and certain officers had been chosen - or were having to do - what he was doing.

The officer asked for another promise from Andy not to reveal details of the conversation before saying that the government was preparing for what he was about to reveal 'well, well, in advance'. They were expecting ...

'... a war, a lot of riots, a lot of very big trouble.'

The coming EU dictatorship?
http://www.rense.com
/general82/end.htm

Refuse to comply.

The officer said that he understood that Andy and his colleagues had been given a number of cards, one with the Pace caution and one giving permission to enter various premises.

'Let's just say, I know, now, the reason you have been given them is because when all of this happens, and it will, we will be on the front line with the armed forces and people in your kind of jobs ... parking wardens, security officers, CCTV operatives and so on will be required to do our job.'

'You must be joking, that's crazy', Andy replied.

'I'm not joking', the officer said, this is on the level. I am just putting you wise to what will happen, but the main thing is please don't tell anyone.'"

Google 'domestic reverse osmosis'. The cheapest unit I can find (5-stage) is £220. Might be a good investment in the circumstances.

Knowledge is power. We should know which areas are to be subjected to flouridation.
Why should we all suffer because parents do not teach their children to brush their teeth and not to eat sweets. Surely Supernanny can teach the parents the basic of dnetal hygiene. As usual this council makes the majority suffer for the minority.

The idea that the powers that be care so much about our dental health that they must force us to take their dubious "remedy" like naughty disobediant little children is a joke, especially when you consider what they have done to the dental service in this country (how many people now go without dental treatment altogether because they can't find an NHS dentist to take them on?).

This will not prevent dental decay or save the NHS any money, it can only be intended to be for social pacification and control.

The Nazis lost the hot war in 1945, but their plan for snatching ultimate victory from this temporary military defeat by taking over Europe by stealth through the EU continues apace. The only question is if those who do their dirty work for them in this country are actual traitors or just "useful fools".

Be informed, people. We are tip toeing headlong into Orwell's 1984:

http://www.cremation
ofcare.com/the_nwo_c
ommon_purpose.htm

How dare these people poison us with this this stuff! Please google fluoride and find out the facts for yourself. They want to dumb us down and make us docile in preparation for the coming EU police state.
Wake up, people.

Do whatever it takes to stop this fluoridation.
this chemical is toxic and is a know pacifier ( from the Nazi era experiments).
Just look at the USA and how Bush and the police state are just rolling over the population with no protest. All is lost when you start adding chemicals to the water supply.

Learn more about this poison here www.fluoridealert.or
g/

Another key point about water supply fluoridation that most people seem to miss, is that once the authorities have the machinery installed to mix fluorides into water, what is to stop them upping the concentration when they feel the populace needs some industrail grade pacification?

Sure, the concentration may be very low to begin with. But later...? In a situation of widespread civil uprising, no one is going to be doing water purity analysis. Even if they do, and find very high fluoride levels, the news will be suppressed.

If find it very sad that people continually delude themselves that western countries are not yet in a resist-or-die crisis, in which treasonous, murderous elites in government are enabling the final steps for a global police state and massive population cull.

The time for words is past.

You should grumble - over here in Australia we don't have a choice.
Water is recycled from sewerage & chlorinated & fluoridated & much more we don't know of as well!
Dur! We are never asked for an opinion re
The s%*t dumped into our water system.
No wonder we Aussies are not considered to have a great deal between the ears.

Hi Christina

The point of this article is that we are NOT being given the choice.

As for your situation "Down Under", I understand that the extensive recycling and chlorinization is due to your severe water shortage problem. But that doesn't mean that you should have to put up with flouridization. Why don't you start a campaign against it? The more countries that reject enforced mass medication/poisoning with flouride the better.

If more people understood about fluoride,they would react in anger. Complacency is what the Authorities depend on to get away with fluordation. What you won't get from them is the truth! Even my dentist who is an advocate of it in water, told me not to let my children swallow their toothpaste containing it. I changed my toothpaste and my dentist!! I bought my domestic reverse osmosis unit from pure eau £169. I've had a 5 stage unit but my 4 stage filtration is far superior and more compact.

Toxic waste in our water made compulsory by crooks who call themselves politicians. Water companies given immunity from prosecution in the event of accidents and even indemnity from the debts incurred by those who rightly refuse to pay for poisoned water. A consultation process just like that for the post offices, ie, a sham. Sorry i cannot afford to pay for this muck in my water so Darling can foot the bill. Democrasy would be a good idea wouldnt it.?

I'm impressed with the comments made here. Southampton is clearly an area where people know what is going on. Perhaps that's why they are trying to pacify the population area with fluoride.
Now we know why the government encouraged tooth decay over the last few years and destroyed the excellent dental service we all used to enjoy: to justify putting Fluoride in the water. Problem-reaction-sol
ution.

Fluoride is ALL bad and NO good. Argumebents for? There aren't any. Stop using Toothpaste to, its the brushing that works. Same as deodorants. Lets invent a term called BO and get everyone to poison themselves with Aluminium and other contaminants. The Conspiracy theorist's are the intelligent ones. We have a total criminal establishment and on the whole the media are totally complicit. Who does what is being very carefully monitored these days and lists grow long indeed. Pick your side.

So much for the human right about everybody having the right to fresh and safe water.... whatever.

Consider investing in a household water filter to cut out the pollution, flouride and limescale before it enters yrou house.

Considering fluoride is a poison, perhaps we should ask why anyone would want to put it in the water supply anyway. We know during the second World war that the Nazi's used Fluoride to pacify the prisoners in the concentration camps. Are they trying to pacify us? Look at the chemicals being sprayed in the sky every day.

can anyone tell me who is going to stop the youngsters drinking sugar laden soft drinks and sweets and make them drink the poisoned water ?

Southampton has two Labour MPs. With the current state of opinion polls, they might be feeling a little nervous about losing their jobs at the next election.

Perhaps a few thousand letters and emails to them pointing out the strength of feeling on this subject might have some effect?

MPs contact details can be found here: http://www.parliamen
t.uk/directories/hci
olists/alms.cfm

The toxic waste from the phosphate fertiliser industry that is used for fluoridation schemes needs to be dealt with at source as a contaminant - and not repackaged as being good for humans and also put out into the environment

david wrote:
''But of course, reactionary conspiracy theories are much more fun, aren't they?'' Yeah sure it's good for you, have it you way, enjoy the brain damage. Ta ra x

Looks like David can't actually read, as he seems to have no idea what that statement was referring to.

Numpty.

READ :
CONSPIRATORS HIERARCHY:
THE COMMITTEE OF 300 by Dr. John Coleman

ISBN: 0-922356-57-2 ISBN: 0963401947 (1997)

the echco does not give a balance story it only prints news ?

It is plain to see that the government is trying to implement tactics employed by the nazis and soviet russia, to pacify their respective concentration camp and gulag populations.

It has been scientifically proven time and time again that fluoridation of water is an ineffective way of improving the dental health of the population. Topical application via toothpaste has a better effect.

Ingesting flouride actually damages your health, reduces your IQ, attacks your bodys glandular systems, increases the risk of bone cancer. Fluoride is also the main ingredient in rat poison.

Another reason to be against fluoridation is the fact that it is forced medication and the dose that people get can not be monitored or measured.

If you want to reduce your exposure to this harmful chemical, I suggest that you get yourself a water filter system or if you can afford it a reverse osmosis water filter system to minimise your risk.

In the US, where some states have had fluoridation for several decades have begun to ban it from their water supplies. Nearly all the countries in Europe have Banned fluoridation and regard the substance toxic.

Surely there must be some legal loophole that will prevent this mass pollution of our drinking water.Maybe someone should take this matter to the European Courts who usually seem to like meddling in our human rights laws. I live in Woolston and have two children, aged 18 & 15, neither of whom have needed fillings. This proves that we do no require flouride imposed on us to have good teeth.

not only are you being poisoned by floride,u r also being attacked by mecurry in you mouths ,i would be interested to know how many off the young people in wales that commited suicide had mercurry in their mouths,i brt my wad they all had,

The proposals to flouridate public water with toxic compounds of hexaflourasilic acid is a direct breech of european regulations forbiding the mass medication of human poulations. It is also an offence under section 4 of the offences against the person Act of 1841. the water regulations of 2003 were a specific attempt by the government to provide the water supply industry with a "blanket" immunity against civil and criminal liability arising out of these criminal acts. Poisoning by Flouride, a known and deadly toxin, has no place in the public health system and its introduction has more to do with eugenics and population control than dental care. Alan Johnson is more than aware of this. Unfortunately unelected and unaccountable "health quangos" will be seeking to call the shots on this issue and most of them will be riven with the corrupt members of Common Purpose. An organisation more sinister than the real IRA.

@ P. Griffiths.

I had been trying to remember the name of the sinister organisation that seems to be directly behind much of the collectivist assault on our individual liberties in order to do more research on it.

Thanks for reminding me that it is "Common Purpose". Do you have any recommended references and links?

All these anti-fluoride people, what are you on? Sounds like people from different planet, Ooh the group who shouts loud and gets everything; well off middle class at the expense of poor and deprived. I am all for re-distribution of wealth and health.

So what has flouridization got to do with the re-distibution of either wealth or health? Have you done any research on the matter?

marion wrote:
Surely there must be some legal loophole that will prevent this mass pollution of our drinking water.Maybe someone should take this matter to the European Courts who usually seem to like meddling in our human rights laws. I live in Woolston and have two children, aged 18 & 15, neither of whom have needed fillings. This proves that we do no require flouride imposed on us to have good teeth.

I don't know about you, but I intend to send the bill for my Reverse-Osmosis filter to the PCT, as they're the ones who'll have forced me to buy it.

They'll also cop all my osteopath bills from putting my back out lugging heavy bottles of water around every day - I don't have a car, and they always encourage us to walk everywhere and not emit CO2, so it's only fair really.


(For the record, I've never had a filling before and never even used fluoride toothpaste - it's not scientific evidence but it does go to show that your teeth won't fall out without fluoride, so long as you brush daily for two minutes and don't eat crap, and sip water whilst eating to wash away acids. Easy.)

I saw a documentary set in Tibet a couple of years ago. They were interviewing an old woman around 90 years old. She had a full set of white teeth. She's never been exposed to fluoride nor the junk in food we are exposed to in the '1st world'. Saying flouride is good for children's teeth is a kop out for lazy kids and parents who only need to make sure they are cleaning their teeth (preferably with a salt based toothpaste).
Why the hell would anyone want to drink water with this chemical in it? I hope the residents of Hampshire rally round and demand this is removed. Plus I would like to know who is benefitting from putting the fluoride into the water. Some company somewhere is providing it, and the someone is probably getting a kick back for this. Who pays for it? The customers.

How dare they!
We need to start making groups all over the world.
They are bloody evil.
A ladies kid was in hospital last month from toothpast.
the baby was only 4 months old

I have 2 sons 18 & 20. They have problem teeth due to the fact that I inadvisedly used fluoride drops when they were babies. They both drink water regularly and clean their teeth regularly. I am concerned that fluoride in the water will damage their teeth further. At the moment they are looking at spending thousands on their teeth if they can ever afford it to have good white teeth again instead of the brown chalky teeth they have at present. Teeth need to be cleaned and checked by a dentist regularly and water substituted for fizzy drinks to have healthy teeth. This should be promoted through schools and health authorities. Spend the money on providing enough nhs dentists for everyone and encourage people to use them.

This all concerns me!!
P Griffiths/Andover comments that to remove flouride then a process called reverse osmosis is to be used.
I have family who use water the reverse osmosis way in the caribbean and it is not only expensive, my mother has had various health problems since using it.
She is convinced that the water they use is the cause of the problems and now uses bottled water.
Why should we have to have flouride in our water at the expense of the governments short-comings?
I pay private dental fees for my 3 children despite my husband paying huge sums annually in tax and national insurance. I consider us lucky that we can afford to do this, but i am also sensible with their diet...everything in moderation!
Why should we all have more chemicals forced upon us when some of us strive to look after our teeth anyway?

Fluoridation is UNSAFE because:
• It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.

• It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone

• It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in a fluoridated area (It costs £200+ a tooth to put right)


• There are still serious about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma (bone cancer), in young men as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.

• In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain. In humans, this increases the likehood of alzheimers
Fluoridation is UNETHICAL because:
It violates the individual's right to informed consent to medication.
It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects

Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY because:
Children can have perfectly good teeth without being exposed to fluoride.
Fluoridated toothpaste is the best method for delivering fluoride to teeth while minimizing harmful exposure to the rest of the body.
The vast majority of Europe has rejected water fluoridation as unsafe and unethical

Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE because:
Major dental researchers concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children.



In Fluoridated Birmingham, 48% of children have developed some degree of dental fluorosis. It is disfiguring and requires a cost of £200 a tooth to put right. Are they going to pay for this? "
Our bodies will suffer as we can only excrete half of it - the rest gets stored in our body tissue, particularly our bones.
Basically, it’s a complete waste of time, it’s unsafe, and It’s ‘nanny state’ trying to divert from the fact that is they who are responsible for an increase in poor dental health among the less well off.
They destroyed the access to NHS dental care and they need to put it right - Poisoning us, whether we want it or not, is not the answer
Complain to your MP now at….
http://www.parliamen
t.uk/directories/hci
olists/alms.cfm
Also CALL Southern water and threaten to sue them if they go ahead.

adrian wrote:
All these anti-fluoride people, what are you on? Sounds like people from different planet, Ooh the group who shouts loud and gets everything; well off middle class at the expense of poor and deprived. I am all for re-distribution of wealth and health.

Adrian, it is the POOR who will suffer the most from this!!! I can't afford dental care because there are no NHS dentists and I can't afford Private care. It's a LABOUR govt. doing all this - WAKE UP MATE!!!

Adrian is the "Boxer" character in George Orwell's Animal Farm. Whatever the Party elite says is good for us must be so. No need for independent thought or research. Just take your medecine like a good little prole.

For goodness sake!!! Rat poison, Mood supressant, POISON. For anyone who is gullible enough to believe the propoganda about it being beneficial to children, type the following into GOOGLE. nazi germany fluoride water supply Plenty of links here to tell you all you need to know.

There will be no adding of fluoride to the drinking water. The level is being adjusted. There is already naturally some level of fluoride in southampton's water. Do any of you know the level that the authorities are hoping to add it at. One part of fluoride per one million parts of water. This amount has never been proven as of yet to cause any kind of ill health, but it has been known to benefit children and adults when it comes to there dental health. There are almost one thousand southampton children having general anaethetics every year to remove decayed, painful teeth. And these are facts, not something that i have found after reading an obscure page I found from google!!

Inform yourselves and prepare for the worst. There are a lot of people who commented, that are already clued up, but others need to take their blinkers off. Check out "ENDGAME" by Alex Jones and read up on the Bilderberg group. Sooner the better. Check out infowars.com.

I would not be happy if the water board start putting in fluoride in my water.
As it is depressant which if you look back in history the Nazi were using to control people.

On the BMA's website they argue that in most areas of the UK they're only adding fluoride to fluoride deficient water, which the law states they are allowed to do. It's the law that is wrong and their arguments that fluoridation has been used for forty years without evidence of health problems is neither here nor there. They quote references from Hansard, whose Director is Eric Roll, a Bilderberg attendee. Check it out for yourselves.

Stuart Jebbitt wrote:

adrian wrote:
All these anti-fluoride people, what are you on? Sounds like people from different planet, Ooh the group who shouts loud and gets everything; well off middle class at the expense of poor and deprived. I am all for re-distribution of wealth and health.

Adrian, it is the POOR who will suffer the most from this!!! I can\\\'t afford dental care because there are no NHS dentists and I can\\\'t afford Private care. It\\\'s a LABOUR govt. doing all this - WAKE UP MATE!!!

It is a myth that there are no NHS dentists in hampshire taking on patients! Call the dental helpline, they have lists of dentists that are available. Some people are not willing to help themselves when it comes to their dental health but have lots to say about it when the health authorities try to lend them a helping hand. There is absolutely no research based evidence that links the proposed adjustment to the level of fluoride in the water to any kind of health conditions. No one, poor, middle class or rich will suffer. We will alll benefit!!

@ other side of the story

It hardly helps the credibility of your case that you start it with some blatant sophistry. If adjusting a quantity of something upwards isn't exactly the same as adding to it then I don't know what it is. Why do you need to try to obscure the truth with your "adjusting" euphemism if your case is so good?

You also seem to appeal rather a lot to your own supposed authority, expecting us to take your word for it that you are in posession of superior knowledge. Yet you give no supporting references for your "facts" and opinions concerning the pros and cons of water fluoridisation, and denigrate the research efforts of others as "obscure pages found through Google".

Well, this Internet document must be obscure enough for you to never have read it, but actually it is one of the best reviews (conducted by the University of York) of research into fluoridisation that there has been:

http://tinyurl.com/4

bavcw

One quote from it: "The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable."

The Nazis were the first to add fluoride to water in the concentration camps. It was called medicated water and made people

subservient

and took the fire out of their bellies.

Fence-sitters might like to read this (not technically demanding) paper, entitled "Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation.", written by the late Dr. John Colquhoun who was Principal Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand:

http://tinyurl.com/s
zv

It gives the lie to all of other_side_of_the_st
ory's assertions about the efficacy and safety of water fluoridisation.

This is awful! I couldn't believe I was reading this in the Echo the other day. It is at least quite nice to realise that there are people out there that also realise FLOURIDE IS POISON!!! type flouride on youtube and watch any videos, also search David Icke. A big conspiracy and a mind supressant-so they get us exactly where they want us. It is true flouride can help externally on our teeth but once swallowed it is poisoning us-Hitler used high levels of it on concentration camps. OPEN YOUR MIND!!! LET'S STOP THIS HAPPENING!!!

Hartlepool water contains:-

450 milligrams Calcium carbonate.

arround 1 milligram Calcium fluoride.

Food manufacturers can make a health claim:-

"Added Calcium for strong bones and healthy teeth"

Therefore you have to establish by randomised trial what chemical does what?

Fluoride journal April 1994 pages 59 to 66 gave children a one gram Calcium tablet.

A small sample gives us a plot from 5 to 14 years old. DMFT of 0.2 for second set of teeth
increases to 0.4 DMFT at the age of 14.

Thus Calcium carbonate tablets gives our children very low rates of tooth decay over
lifetime.

Take BDJ 6th October 1944 journal by Robert Weaver, 1944 UK Chief Dental Officer, reports:-

table 3, 12 to 17 year olds give DMFT 2.4 rose to 6.5 at 17 year olds.
Thus Calcium fluoride gives us high DMFT rates compared to Calcium carbonate.

Low Calcium fluoride water 12 to 17 year olds give DMFT 4.3 to 7.2 at 17 year olds.

At a constant DMFT of 4.3/4.5 between the two groups there is a 3 year delay.

At a constant DMFT of 6.5 between the two groups there is a 2 year delay.

The 30 year old mothers have rates of DMFT of 15 and 17, thus fluoridation gives us
increasing DMFT over lifetime, far higher rate of rise compared with Calcium carbonate.

Therefore the UK Expert group on vitamins and minerals 8 May 2003 report is fully justified
that "Calcium is good for healthy bones and teeth". Randomised trial was repeated 25 times from 1963 to 1988, thus good science.

"...data indicated that drinking water with as little as 1 ppm shortened the life span of mice an average of nine per cent. This was true whether death was due to cancer or non-cancerous diseases. ... In experiments where the drug was added directly to suspensions of cancer tissue before inoculation into eggs or mice, sodium fluoride stimulated the growth of cancer tissue in concentrations of one part in more than 20 million. ... The terrifying conclusion of the studies was that fluorine greatly induced a cancer tumor growth. If doctors and the public can be made aware of this catastrophe, fluoridation shall end quickly. It will someday be recognized as the most lethal and stupid 'Health Program' ever conceived by the mind of man, witch doctors and blood-letters not excepted." Alfred Taylor, Ph.D, Biochemical Institute, University of Texas, Austin Texas, 1965.

@ David Maddock

Yes, of course, calcium is good for teeth and bones - it is, after all, what they are chiefly made of - but the same is NOT true of fluorine. And it is sodium fluoride that is being added to the water supply (a convenient and highly profitable way for the chemical industry to dispose of it's toxic waste via our kidneys), NOT calcium flouride. So what is the point of your comment? Are you scientifically illiterate, or do you imagine that the rest of us are so that you can easily pull the wool over our eyes with a few (unreferenced, by the way) figures that have nothing to do with the argument at hand?

Mark note talks about Sodium fluoride. If you take the trouble to read the South Central SHA board report on water fluoridation , they will use Hexafluorosilic acid, not Sodium fluoride. I report what is said within any paper. I quote from the two papers. That is accurate science.

What the South Central SHA board are doing, is supplying hexafluoride ions, not fluoride ions. The data sheet quotes "100% stable in aqueous solution". Therefore the SHA board are not adjusting the fluoride ion level but adding a new more toxic hexafluoride ion. Southampton Otterbourne tap water contains Calcium fluoride at a low level.

The Hexafluorosilic acid is carefully made in Spain from Calcium fluorospar mined in Africa. It is shipped into Ireland and UK in 22,000 litre containers.

In plain english, there is no human requirement for any fluoride compounds. Weston A Price in 1938 published his book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" which lists 12 groups of people on 12 different diets who have no tooth decay at all, and do not eat the weston junk food. More infomation at www.curetoothdecay.c

om

This flouride that is added to official tap supplies in the UK is not the organic form of flouride. It is a by product of the chemical industry and is lethal.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to know exactly which water authorities have it and which don't.

The Brits are being used as guinea pigs to see if they can either destroy us or subdue us. Either way we won't interfere or even try to object. That is their aim.

You can't even trust bottled water, as one company once took ordinary tap water and pushed a carbonated substance through it and then made you pay a fortune for it. It was just as deadly as it had been before.

The water companies put aluminium into the water to attract bad bacteria, etc out of the water, however, the amount of aluminium varies from place to place, and aluminium itself is a dangerous toxin. In Gateshead area it has been considered to be one of the causes of Alzheimers.

None of our water is healthy for us, neither is the food. I can't afford an osmosis machine, and generally I am looking at other means of trying to minimise the problems with water we receive. I am even prepared to use boiled rainwater, especially as my cat refuses to have tap water but willingly drinks dirty rainwater outside. What does he know that we don't?

Don't expect the authorities to listen to us, and it is a bit late to complain, as they have so many methods of controlling us now it wouldn't work. We had two spell of spontaneous uniting of morality, and the majority of us showed our dislike of what was happening to Diana, and the very first Fuel Price Protest. But since then the security forces have been investigating us, unable to believe we would all think the same way spontaneously. They can only think that someone had led us to this conclusion instead of believing that the ordinary person in the street could work it out for him/herself.

Now flouridation is increasing, and we are being given more and more rubbish in food, water, air, and energy.

Did you know it is not a human right to have water, or food, or clean air, or energy? It is a need and as such comes under the rules of business, not human rights. Gets to you doesn't it!

Flouridation of public water supplies should not be allowed!
And heres why:

WHY EPA’S HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS
OPPOSES FLUORIDATION*

The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.

The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members had thought that fluoride’s only effects were beneficial — reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.‡

Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was all right for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn’t have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.

We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief‡‡ in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail.1

Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. First, a review of recent neurotoxicity research results.

In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers2 showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride – as adult animals, as young animals, or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998, Guan and co-workers3 gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by the Mullenix group. Guan’s group found that several key chemicals in the brain – those that form the membrane of brain cells – were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride.

Another 1998 publication by Varner, Jensen and others4 reported on the brain- and kidney-damaging effects in rats that were given fluoride in drinking water at the same level deemed "optimal" by pro-fluoridation groups, namely 1 part per million (1 ppm). Even more pronounced damage was seen in animals that got the fluoride in conjunction with aluminum. These results are especially disturbing because of the low dose level of fluoride that shows the toxic effect in rats - rats are more resistant to fluoride than humans. This latter statement is based on Mullenix’s finding that it takes substantially more fluoride in the drinking water of rats than of humans to reach the same fluoride level in plasma. It is the level in plasma that determines how much fluoride is "seen" by particular tissues in the body. So when rats get 1 ppm in drinking water, their brains and kidneys are exposed to much less fluoride than humans getting 1 ppm, yet they are experiencing toxic effects. Thus we are compelled to consider the likelihood that humans are experiencing damage to their brains and kidneys at the "optimal" level of 1 ppm.

In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China5,6 that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.

Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride’s interference with the function of the brain’s pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body’s internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke7 has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956, as part of the Kingston/Newburgh study, which is discussed below. In fluoridated Newburgh, young girls experienced earlier onset of menstruation (on average, by six months) than girls in non-fluoridated Kingston.8

From a risk assessment perspective, all these brain effect data are particularly compelling and disturbing because they are convergent.

We looked at the cancer data with alarm as well. There are epidemiology studies that are convergent with whole-animal and single-cell studies (dealing with the cancer hazard), just as the neurotoxicity research just mentioned all points in the same direction. EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water’s chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union’s treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue.9 The judge who heard the lawsuit he brought against EPA over the firing made that finding - that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA. Documentation is available on request.

The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride’s ability to cause mutations (a principal "trigger" mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.11a,b,c,d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey,12 Washington and Iowa13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.

Bone pathology other than cancer is a concern as well. An excellent review of this issue was published by Diesendorf et al. in 1997.14 Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities.15a,b,c,
d,e Crippling skeletal fluorosis was the endpoint used by EPA to set its primary drinking water standard in 1986, and the ethical deficiencies in that standard setting process prompted our union to join the Natural Resources Defense Council in opposing the standard in court, as mentioned above.

Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities.16 The latest publication17 on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.

John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important.18 Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation - until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation’s effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, "Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation." In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English-speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180-degree turn on fluoridation.

Further on the point of the tide turning against drinking water fluoridation, statements are now coming from other dentists in the pro-fluoride camp who are starting to warn that topical fluoride (e.g. fluoride in tooth paste) is the only significantly beneficial way in which that substance affects dental health.19,20,21 However, if the concentrations of fluoride in the oral cavity are sufficient to inhibit bacterial enzymes and cause other bacteriostatic effects, then those concentrations are also capable of producing adverse effects in mammalian tissue, which likewise relies on enzyme systems. This statement is based not only on common sense, but also on results of mutation studies which show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste.22 Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study mentioned above, further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.

In any event, a person can choose whether to use fluoridated tooth paste or not (although finding non-fluoridated kinds is getting harder and harder), but one cannot avoid fluoride when it is put into the public water supplies.

So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled - and apparently uncontrollable - exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products. A recent report in the lay media,23 that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, at least 22 percent of America’s children now have dental fluorosis, is just one indication of this uncontrolled, excess exposure. The finding of nearly 12 percent incidence of dental fluorosis among children in un-fluoridated Kingston New York17 is another. For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.

Thus, we took the stand that a policy which makes the public water supply a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless (via ingestion, at any rate) substance is wrong.

We have also taken a direct step to protect the employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water. We applied EPA’s risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The Reference Dose is the daily dose, expressed in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight, that a person can receive over the long term with reasonable assurance of safety from adverse effects. Application of this methodology to the Varner et al4 data leads to a Reference Dose for fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of Columbia while at work receive about 0.01mg/kg-day from that source alone. This amount of fluoride is more than 100 times the Reference Dose. On the basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.

The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.

What exactly is Fluoride?

Fluorine, is a member of the halogen group of elements, is the thirteenth most common element. It is the most reactive of all the halogens and a deadly poison; it does not exist in nature on its own but is found only in compounds (fluorides) with other elements. Calcium fluoride is the most common, as fluorine has a strong affinity for calcium. In short this is industrial waste!

The big question is, why have the "governments" been so insistent on poisoning the people especially the children?

Here is a statement from the Global elite's "golden boy" and bare faced liar Tony Blair:



“I cannot pretend to be an expert on the matter , but from what I read, it seems to be better, rather than worse, for people’s health”
UK Prime minister, Tony Blair, Prime Minister’s Questions, Hansard, 6th May 1998

Well Tony you must have missed this one then!

Fluoride is more toxic than lead and only marginally less toxic than arsenic.
Clinical toxicology of Commercial Products, 5th edition

And here is a statement that rounds it all off nicely for me:

“If this stuff gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the lake, it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right straight into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant. That’s amazing!”
Dr William Hirzy, senior vice president of the trade union that represents professionals working at the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) in Washington

It's time to find out what the "estabishment" is really up to and why they are so keen to destroy our health, especially our childrens health. Because it is not only with fluoride, there is also Aspartame, another poison added to thousands of food products. GM contaminated food is also another big issue as this stuff will affect your health from a genetic level! But also look to the sky for CHEMTRAILS. these are the nasty trails of poisonous chemicals that pollute the very air that we breath. I'm sure you have all noticed the trails that are left by aircraft in the sky? A "Contrail" is a normal discharge and dissipates after a couple of minutes. A "Chemtrail" does not, it stays there and spreads out across the sky blocking out the Sun to a degree. There are doctors and scientists out there who are saying that chemtrails are responsible for a huge increase in Asthma with children. One doctor said there was a 700% increase in asthma cases in the state of Alberquerque in the first five years since the chemtrails first appeared!

It's time for people to get together and stop this mass poisoning of the population.

Official statements from South Central SHA, the PCT and doctors Mortimore and Cockroft that dental fluorosis is harmless and fluoridation is completely safe must be immediately and publicly withdrawn.

In 1999, Earl Baldwin of Bewdley asked Her Majesty's Government:

"In view of the absence of any relevant scientific studies cited in the US Review of Fluoride, 1991, referred to in the Written Answer by Baroness Hayman on 8 February (WA 1-2), whether they can quote any other scientific sources in support of their belief that dental fluorosis is only a cosmetic side-effect of fluoride and not an indication of early toxicity."

Baroness Hayman responded, in a Written Answer, for the Government: "We accept that dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity. . " - (Hansard, 20 Apr 1999 : WA 158.).
It is estimated that, as in Ireland, 48% - 54% of children living in fluoridated areas develop dental fluorosis, which dentists refuse to treat on the NHS.

How much more proof do these people want? fluoride is a toxin! and yes it can kill! why do you think so many other countries have banned it? ( they forsee the future suing for billions by those who will be affected).Unless the people stand up and protest in their masses this will go ahead as there are huge sums of money involved for the shareholders .billions of pounds at stake here, and that is the real end game. dont just sit there join UKIP in the fight to get this stopped in its tracks, it is time for you to act you cant afford to sit and wait for 'someone to do something'

A bit rich wanting water floridation for teeth, when toxic mercury, which can retard brain development, is still allowed in fillings.

“12 Reasons to reject fluoridation!”

http://www.americanc
hronicle.com/article
s/33574

Having been one of those people who always believed that fluoridation was good for you (that's what they told us!), it came as quite a shock to discover that this is not the case. After reading some incredible information on this subject, created by Dennis Stevenson, and provided on a very convenient single page, I felt it was my duty to help let others know.

The one page sheet is called “12 Reasons to reject fluoridation!” and you can help to spread the word by copying this information and sending it to your friends, newspapers, magazines etc. You can also distribute this page to: Members of Parliament, local government, radio, television and the print media, law enforcement officers, lawyers and court officials, armed forces, scientists, universities, schools, colleges, libraries, at conventions, election rallies, to celebrities, authors, health campaigners and any others who you feel may be able to help take some action on this problem. Please copy and distribute the following information as you see it. Thanks. 12 Reasons to reject fluoridation!

For over 100 years, science and medicine have understood the poisonous nature of fluoride. In the 1930's and 40's, giant US companies, e.g. ALCOA, were sued for millions of dollars due to toxic fluoride waste escaping from factory smokestacks killing crops and livestock. ALCOA's owners (Mellon) figured that if people could be persuaded fluoride isn't poisonous but is good for teeth, profits could be protected. So, to introduce water fluoridation, they hired the brilliant 'father of propaganda' Edward L. Bernays. Joined later by other fluoride polluting industries (e.g. nuclear) and the multi-billion dollar sugar, toothpaste, confectionary and soft drink industries, they became strong financial supporters of dental associations that promoted fluoridation. One such support group, the Dental Health Education & Research Foundation (DHERF) was founded in Australia in 1962. Its Governors, Members and donors comprised key representatives from Coca-Cola, CSR, Kelloggs, Colgate-Palmolive, Wrigleys, Arnotts, Scanlens, Cadbury Schweppes, etc.

The following 12 points require no expertise in fluoride toxicity, just common sense:….

Click on link above for the compelling truth about the fluoride conspirators……�
�……..

Dennis Stevenson is a former Parliamentarian and Member of the ACT Legislative Assembly 'Fluoridation Inquiry' (1989-91). The majority of inquiry members would not report the scientific, medical, dental and court evidence received in worldwide submissions proving that fluoridation causes disease, deaths, tooth decay and is useless and environmentally destructive. Dennis put this evidence in a 177 page Dissenting Report, part of this major government report, but longer than the 131 page section which attempted to suppress the evidence and I also found a relationship between a large health organisation and a fluoride society - you are being lied to if some fluoride proponents claim it is "natural mineral" what they put in the water supplies to fluoridate is dangerous toxic chemical waste which will destroy the health of the world - REVOLT AGAINST THIS NOW IS HAPPENING WORLDWIDE - THEY ARE SICK OF THE FLUORIDATION SPIN DOCTORS AND WORLD CONTROL.

SODIUM FLUOROSILICATE
Chemwatch Material Safety Data Sheet (REVIEW)
Issue Date: 16-Aug-2006 CHEMWATCH 22552
NC317TCP CD 2006/4 Page 1 of 11
Section 1 - CHEMICAL PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION
PRODUCT NAME
SODIUM FLUOROSILICATE
SYNONYMS
F6-Si.2Na, Na2-Si-F6, "Destruxol Applex", "sodium hexafluosilicate", "disodium
hexafluorosilicate", "sodium silicofluoride", "disodium hexafluorosilicate(2
-)", "sodium
silicon fluoride", "disodium silicofluoride", "Super Prodan", "Ens-Zem Weevil Bait", "Ent
1, 501", "silicate (2-), hexafluoro-, disodium", "Ortho Earwig Bait Weevil Bait",
Prodan, "PSC Co-op Weevil Bait", Safsan, Salufer, "silicon sodium fluoride", "sodium
fluosilicate", "sodium hexafluorosilicate", "Welding Industries Raw Materials Code 1946"
PROPER SHIPPING NAME
SODIUM FLUOROSILICATE
PRODUCT USE
Used in fluoridation of water, laundry compounds, enamels and glazes in pottery
manufacture. Additive in metallurgy (aluminium and beryllium). Component of some
insecticides, rodenticides and moth repellent. Used as preservative in glue, leather and
wood; chemical intermediate.

Section 2 - HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
STATEMENT OF HAZARDOUS NATURE
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE. DANGEROUS GOODS. According to the Criteria of NOHSC,
and the ADG Code.
POISONS SCHEDULE
S6
RISK SAFETY
Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if Keep locked up.
swallowed.
Contact with acids liberates toxic gas. Avoid contact with eyes.
Irritating to eyes. Wear suitable protective clothing.
Cumulative effects may result following In case of insufficient ventilation wear
exposure*. suitable respiratory equipment.
May produce discomfort of the respiratory Use only in well ventilated areas.
system*.
Limited evidence of a carcinogenic effect*. Keep container in a well ventilated place.
* (limited evidence). To clean the floor and all objects contaminated
by this material, use water.
This material and its container must be disposed
of in a safe way.
Keep away from food, drink and animal feeding
stuffs.
Take off immediately all contaminated clothing.
In case of contact with eyes, rinse with plenty
of water and contact Doctor or Poisons
Information Centre.
This material and its container must be disposed
of as hazardous waste.
In case of accident by inhalation: remove
casualty to fresh air and keep at rest.
Section 3 - COMPOSITION / INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS
NAME CAS RN %
sodium fluorosilicate 16893-85-9 >95
Section 4 - FIRST AID MEASURES
SWALLOWED
Rinse mouth out with plenty of water.
For advice, contact a Poisons Information Centre or a doctor.
· IF SWALLOWED, REFER FOR MEDICAL ATTENTION, WHERE POSSIBLE, WITHOUT DELAY.
· For advice, contact a Poisons Information Centre or a doctor.
Where Medical attention is not immediately available or where the patient is more than 15
minutes from a hospital or unless instructed otherwise:
· Induce vomiting with fingers down the back of the of the throat, ONLY IF CONSCIOUS.