Get the 16,000 people that say no to brush there kids teeth then.

so much for 'texting' to be the way of the future. Such as small number using it for this type of thing, councils/newspapers etc shouldn't bother spending money on that sort of thing

Anon wrote:
so much for 'texting' to be the way of the future. Such as small number using it for this type of thing, councils/newspapers etc shouldn't bother spending money on that sort of thing

I don't think that's quite the issue here...

I would like to see this "comprehensive"poll the SHA ran. I would like to see the way the questions are worded, the rejection rate and the evidence supplied with it, as everything I've read so far from the NHS is highly biased.

Captain Colgate wrote:
Get the 16,000 people that say no to brush there kids teeth then.

So many people seem to have children without actually feeling the weight of responsibility for them. Of course parents should supervise their childrens' teeth brushing. We should not fill in for those people who cannot be bothered. This sends the message that lying around on your backside wins rewards. A bit like giving benefits to the majority of claimants who have never contributed national insurance or tax payments in their lives. If people can't be bothered to brush their teeth because they need their 200 fags a week more, who am I to intervene. Let their teeth rot!!

flouride is toxic
many countries have banned it because they believe it to be harmful.
Mass medication is wrong and it should be up to the indvidual.
i have 3 kids aged 12,9,7 and they all have perfectly healthy teeth. why should they have a toxic added to thier water.

Shouldn't the PCT be promoting public health by advocating healthy living in these target areas? If you have a poor diet and drink sugary drinks no amount of fluoride is going to help. Have the PCT given up or failed on health promotion?

So what happens to the majority of kids who DO brush their teeth properly, will they suffer from fluoride overdose ?

i see small children in buggies drinking coke or squash so strong its hard to believe that there is any water in it - these children will invariably have bad teeth and no matter what you put in the water will no affect that - as they do not drink water in the first place

"The real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children's teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper, and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty."

"When the Nazis under Hitler decided to go to Poland, both the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans, and personnel, and the scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plans to communize the world."

"I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great I.G. Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years' research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine --- any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically."

Signed: CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October, 1954.

Cole Gates – The PCT is actively promoting oral health. However, if a parent can’t be bothered to literally cross the road to a free dental health clinic for her child (which she admits has holes in its teeth and whose diet she says consists of chocolate muffins and Coke) there is not a lot anyone can do. You can take a horse to water – or even a neglected child – but you can’t make them drink!

SAINT BEAN wrote:
"The real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children's teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper, and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty."

"When the Nazis under Hitler decided to go to Poland, both the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans, and personnel, and the scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plans to communize the world."

"I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great I.G. Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years' research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine --- any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically."

Signed: CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October, 1954.

Yes, nail on head. Today flouride, next stop microchipping. We know their plan, don't jump on the first stepping stone - FIGHT FLOURIDATION WITH EVERYTHING YOU'VE GOT.

John wrote:

Captain Colgate wrote:
Get the 16,000 people that say no to brush there kids teeth then.

So many people seem to have children without actually feeling the weight of responsibility for them. Of course parents should supervise their childrens' teeth brushing. We should not fill in for those people who cannot be bothered. This sends the message that lying around on your backside wins rewards. A bit like giving benefits to the majority of claimants who have never contributed national insurance or tax payments in their lives. If people can't be bothered to brush their teeth because they need their 200 fags a week more, who am I to intervene. Let their teeth rot!!

What has brushing your teeth got to do with smoking 200 fags a week,

As John eloquently said, if you make your bed, you gotta lie in it, don't enforce a cure for your ills on me thank you very much. This is bad, bad, news if it goes any further. As posters have indicated, there is almost definately a sinister subplot to putting chemicals in our drinking water - I feel anyone suggested otherwise has a vested interest in its distrubtion.

This is not about the teeth of the hygenically challenge lower class. Why are the people in charge claiming they care about a few fillings - as if!!

Fluoride is a natral mineral which is already present in our water and untill now you have not complained about having it your water! All we want to do is top up the amount that is present and you would not even notice its there.

how many times are the Echo going to run this story? Practically everyday we have something on this. It's clear the majority don't want it, let it lie until the consultation.

Cue massive posts from yanks

read the guardian, article on links with cancer in boys, plus the fluoride added is not the same as that naturally occuring in some regions of the uk

"Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face."

- General Jack D Ripper

Christoff wrote:
how many times are the Echo going to run this story? Practically everyday we have something on this. It\'s clear the majority don\'t want it, let it lie until the consultation. Cue massive posts from yanks

Think about it - they've been running a poll for a week or so (during which they'd want people to know about it and take part), and quite understandably want to publish the results.

PCT Worker wrote:
Fluoride is a natral mineral which is already present in our water and untill now you have not complained about having it your water! All we want to do is top up the amount that is present and you would not even notice its there.

If it is already present, why is there is still bad teeth? What is the level you want to stop at if we are still getting case of bad teeth - there is no magic figure and like has been said time and time again - people with bad teeth DONT EVEN DRINK THE WATER WE ARE PUTTING THIS UNNECESSARY CHEMICAL IN!!

THERE IS A REASON IT SAYS 'DON'T SWALLOW' ON YOUR TOOTH PASTE.

hmm wrote:

Christoff wrote: how many times are the Echo going to run this story? Practically everyday we have something on this. It\'s clear the majority don\'t want it, let it lie until the consultation. Cue massive posts from yanks

Think about it - they've been running a poll for a week or so (during which they'd want people to know about it and take part), and quite understandably want to publish the results.

Grrrrr. How dare you apply logic. I am having a whinge

Steph Martins wrote:

PCT Worker wrote: Fluoride is a natral mineral which is already present in our water and untill now you have not complained about having it your water! All we want to do is top up the amount that is present and you would not even notice its there.

If it is already present, why is there is still bad teeth? What is the level you want to stop at if we are still getting case of bad teeth - there is no magic figure and like has been said time and time again - people with bad teeth DONT EVEN DRINK THE WATER WE ARE PUTTING THIS UNNECESSARY CHEMICAL IN!! THERE IS A REASON IT SAYS 'DON'T SWALLOW' ON YOUR TOOTH PASTE.

That would be because of the other chemicals not flouride.

Steph Martins wrote:

PCT Worker wrote:

Steph Martins wrote:

PCT Worker wrote: Fluoride is a natral mineral which is already present in our water and untill now you have not complained about having it your water! All we want to do is top up the amount that is present and you would not even notice its there.

If it is already present, why is there is still bad teeth? What is the level you want to stop at if we are still getting case of bad teeth - there is no magic figure and like has been said time and time again - people with bad teeth DONT EVEN DRINK THE WATER WE ARE PUTTING THIS UNNECESSARY CHEMICAL IN!! THERE IS A REASON IT SAYS 'DON'T SWALLOW' ON YOUR TOOTH PASTE.

That would be because of the other chemicals not flouride.

Ummm, from this link: www.freearticlesarch ive .com/article/What_s_ In_Your _Toothpaste/10618/0/

One of the main ingredients of toothpaste is fluoride. However, some toothpastes contain huge amounts of this chemical. Excessive fluoride inside our system can cause several problems like chronic fatigue, arthritis, rheumatism, constipation, and maybe cancer. According to the World Health Organization and the US Environmental Protection Agency, fluoride is considered to be an unclassifiable carcinogen .

Someone better qualified than you knows different.

Im a scientific doctor of flouride research, so i doubt it.

I would like to see more NHS dentists. I can't afford the private clinic's bills.

you mean a medical researcher?

you seem to spell fluoride wrong a lot

Can people stop having children if they cant be bothered to look after their welfare!!

Bad parents - you are consistantly the problem. It's about time there was some sort of background check and exam before having babies. It seems that so much resource is now spent propping up cr@p parents...

Buck your ideas up!

So what happens if we find that the water company has put too much fluoride in the water and the population of the city starts developing medical complaints because of this?

I've heard alarming things about excessive fluoride and don't want it in my drinking water.

The last time i checked, we were living in a free society where we have the right to choose...

Thank-you - but I choose to not have the NHS/Water Companies/Grease Monkeys to tamper with my drinking water.

I wonder if this is a breach of my human rights?!? - Next stop: European Court!!

P.S. - There is nothing wrong with my teeth because I brush them twice a day, use mouth wash and floss. I don't want my teeth damaged by fluoridosis! I a segment of society can't be afford to look after their teeth, then the NHS should give them Fluoride supplement tablets rather than mass-medicate the population.

Has anyone done a study to find out the cancer/mortality rates of areas with Fluoride already being added to the water???

I'm not convinced!

Marge wrote:
you mean a medical researcher? you seem to spell fluoride wrong a lot

Hahaha, you beat me to it!

There are not enough scientific doctors about, in my opinion. Thank god we've got PCT Worker.

If the PCT has identified 11 target neighbourhoods, why in gods name don't they employ 2-3 dental health workers to work in these areas??? It would cost far less and be more effective.
It's probably because someone somewhere stands to make a huge profit from overloading their toxic waste - large backhanders all round me thinks. That has to be the only logical explaination.

New research of bone cancer figures has shown a 40% elevated rate in Republic of Ireland (fluoridated) compared to Northern Ireland (unfluoridated).
The bone cancer in question called osteosarcoma is one of the most prevalent cancers in young males, aged 9-20. There are both animal and human studies linking osteosarcoma and water fluoridation/fluorid
e.
Answer that Dr Mortimore!! or are you scared to face the public in an open debate?
as for you so called previous 'consultation'. We know full well how the pro-fluoride people dupe the public with misleadaing questions designed to get the answers you want. Tell people the TRUTH. That you are playing dice with our health as you CAN NOT prove Fluoride is safe.

"Im a scientific doctor of flouride research, so i doubt it".

LOL. "a scientific doctor of flou-ride research".
Now I know the lunatics really HAVE taken over the asylum.

All sounds like an Illuminati plot to me.

There's a BIG difference between fluorine and fluoride (note spelling).

Fluorine is one of nature's natural compound minerals and is beneficial to humans as a trace element.

Fluoride, is quite different, it's an extremely toxic and poisonous man-made waste product from phosphate-fertilizer production.

It is fluoride that is added to water supplies to supposedly curb tooth decay, though facts supporting this are dubious and in any case it ignores the harmful side-effects of fluoride on general health. Fluoride is added to tap water, toothpaste, bottled drinks, and a whole host of processed foods and personal products that are consummed by an unknowing public. Fluoride bio-accumulates in the human body (especially the glands) and over the years and decades, initiates a long list of severe illnesses and degenerative conditions.

The main driver for the use of fluoride in water suppliers is the USA where it is erroneously promoted by the powerful business lobby on the pretext of aiding against tooth decay, whereas the primary purpose is the need to find a commercial market for what would otherwise leave industry with large fluoride surpluses.

Something somewhat comparable has occurred when the massive surplus of American subsidised corn crops were fed into ethanol production for greener petrol. This use resolved one problem, but created much more serious repercussions with world food prices due to land use and is now being hotly debated.

Gosh - this is a lively debate! Can I clarify four important points? (1.) Reverse osmosis (R/O)filtration units cost about £200 each and can be installed by the layman. The filters and membrane often last a lot longer than the manufacturer's recommended 6 months and it is possible to check the total dissolved solids in tap water using a handy little electronic gauge (£25) so that the filters and membrane do not need to be changed quite so often. R/O units use about 5 litres of water for back-flushing the membrane for every 1 litre filtered. If people have a water meter, the installation of an R/O unit is not going to be economical. So - important point (1) - DO NOT CONVERT TO A WATER METER WHILE THE FLUORIDE DEBATE CONTINUES. And then deduct the cost of the R/O unit and filters and membranes from your water charges. You would not be alone in doing this - it's being done already by very many people throughout the fluoridated areas of England.

(2) Stuart Jebbitt - your Irish statistics are interesting. Please post up the reference for the Irish osteosarcoma statistics. BTW Elise Bassin in the USA found that teenage boys from fluoridated areas were more likely to have osteosarcoma than non-fluoridated boys.

(3). Stuart Jebbitt again: yes, you are right to suspect someone making a large profit out of selling the toxic waste product to the NHS. Or rather, someone is making not so great a loss. If the fluorosilicate is advertised in Scandinavia as a toxic waste product, the manufacturers of phosphate fertilisers would have to treat it and then pay lots of dosh to send it to hazardous landfill. So, it is cleverly reclassified as a valuable co-product and sold to the Irish and UK NHS who give it to the water companies for adding to the tap water. This is what is termed "massaging environmental legislation" or "visualising creative solutions".

(4) It doesn't look as though some deprived areas in Southampton will be fluoridated due to the quirkiness of the water supply infrastructure. So these communities will be disadvantaged (I don't think). If the SHA can't fluoridate all the deserving areas, it makes the entire exercise pointless. A solution would be to provide supermarkets in these areas with fluoridated salt and withdraw iodised salt - that way, those denied the benefits of fluoridated water will enjoy the benefits of poor health at the same time as their more fortunate fluoridated neighbours who can enjoy the benefits of fluoridated water. Better still, provide fluoridated bottled water and withdraw Caledonian and Cambrian bottled water from supermarkets. Even better still, provide compulsory fluoridated salt and ban bottled water altogether. Job done!

Sorry - it's me again. Wilson - fluorine - the element - is definitely not an essential trace mineral. Look at Wikipedia: "In its elementally isolated (pure) form, fluorine is a poisonous, pale, yellowish brown gas, with chemical formula F2. Like other halogens, molecular fluorine is highly dangerous; it causes severe chemical burns on contact with skin." I doubt if you would ever find a steady supply of fluorine since it does not occur on its own in nature. Do you mean calcium fluoride perhaps? But even this is injurious to health - look at the thousands of Indians suffering from osteofluorosis because of the calcium fluoride in their water supply which has been leached out of rocks upstream.

Fluoridation is being foisted on the Isle of Man as well as Southampton. The letter below proves not all of the medical profession go along with those who are hell bent in imposing fluoride on us.

FROM: DR ADAM STANDRING, Nobles Hospital, Douglas.

AS a practising member of the Island's medical profession I feel obliged to comment on what I see as some of the misleading information being provided by the Department of Health and Social Security to the public in regard of the proposal to fluoridate the Island's public water supply.
1, in their leaflet, Water Fluoridation – information for Isle of Man residents, the DHSS seemingly implied that there is a problem with dental decay caused by a deficiency of fluoride in our tap water. This is plainly untrue. There has been a decline in our dental health since a 1993 survey which showed it to be acceptable. There appears to be no mention of the actual causes of increased dental decay, which are dietary and behavioural.
2, the implication is that we are lacking an essential mineral is also untrue. If fluoride were an essential mineral for dental health then a deficiency would eventually lead to our teeth crumbling. There is no such medical syndrome.
Fluoride is a medical treatment to strengthen tooth enamel. It is not like iodine, which is added to our bread flour to correct a natural deficiency, nor like chlorine which is added to water to kill pathogens and not to treat the person.
3, I commit an assault if I administer a medication without my patient's consent.
This is taught to all doctors at medical school, including our public health doctors. When I advise or prescribe medicines I am ethically obliged to explain why I am doing so and what the potential drawbacks or side effects of the treatment might be. My patient has the right to determine for themselves if they want to take this medicine. Enforced fluoridation is against this principle.
4, the contentious leaflet cites professional support for fluoridation from the Isle of Man Medical Society. This society only represents the opinions of its members and not those of the Island's medical profession.
5, of the dubiously impartial phone poll which followed, how can its respondents not be influenced by this inaccurate leaflet?
People might end up losing faith in members of the medical profession if our public medical officials fail to conduct themselves with the same levels of frankness and honesty as we hope for in our private consultations at our GP's surgeries or at hospital clinics

Ingested fluoride has no current science to show benefit(just topical) but it does triple dental fluorosis(discolored porous brittle enamel).It is a cumulative toxin like lead and arsenic except you put 1000ppb in the water versus goal of ZERO for lead and arsenic. Toothpaste has some benefit but most children swallow so much that the benefit is offset by enamel damage. The ADA claims most of the worst damage is from toothpaste not being supervised by parents with kids. It has always been about good nutrition if you want to see westonaprice.org as he studies groups around the world before they ate civilazation took away natural foods. processed foods had far less minerals and healthy fats . They went from no cavities with no dentists to lots of rot in one generation. Jim Schultz

Nice website, not.

I think the score on evidence for Vs against is still crushingly against adding this chemical for its alledged small improvement in a couple of people's dental situation.

FIGHT FLUORIDATION, ITS NOT NEEDED, its NOT WANTED AND IT WILL NOT BE FORCED UPON US

The issue of product use is one of deception by the health agencies. In Florida the damage caused to cattle and crops caused the EPA to require smoke stack scrubbers to capture toxic waste. They then called it product is disposed of directly into drinking water. The FDA has never approved or even studied any ingested fluoride product. The thousands of claimed studies include not one single one on this very different blend of toxic chemical. This product is H2SiF6 with about 20 other contaminates many radioactive. Phosphate contains uranium at levels money can be made with recovery units. They closed down the recovery units in Florida by 1998(except one). This is the extra bonus not often mentioned as most would not agree to drinking cumulative radioactive waste. The AWWA establishes the standards and the NSF does the testing. The NSF refuses to disclose the toxic contaminates to the public or even the state health departments. The American Water Works Association just received notice to not destroy data to be used in lawsuits on kidney damage. Because they claim to be the experts on safe water they also have notice they may be named in lawsuits of kidney harm. No better reality check then lawsuits for people that injure others. The National Kidney Foundation has now withdrawn its support of fluoridation and states kidney patients should be alerted of risk. They caution most with chronic kidney damage do not know it yet and no beverages and foods disclose fluoride content so almost an impossible task. No ingested benefit means this is a really stupid policy. Not one test ever on this toxic waste product. The product varies every day in content as the rock content varies so it is almost impossible to certify a unknown blend of toxins. So they did not even try. They just lied and claimed it is all the same. The LD 50 toxicity of H2SiF6 is 34 times more toxic then natural Calcium fluoride which is never used in fluoridation. This site has lots of good science from the no fluoride people and no science from supporters. Go figure. Its all 60 year old theory and old faked studies. They lie then hide and a real debate is very rare. Liars are not stupid in this case and they have huge cash resourses a lots of ignorant professionals to do their biding .. Jim Schultz

On the bone cancer risk Osteosarcoma--New Jersey state health dept did two studies in the early 90's and discover huge increases of up to 7 timtes with the HFSA radioactive product. It took their Congressman John Kelly 2 years and a lawsuit before the FDA finally admitted they have never reviewed or approved any ingested fluoride product. It is grandfathered in as effective rat poison and insecticide prior to 1938. In 1978 the FDA lost 3 lawsuits and admitted no data to show fluorides a nutrient or probable nutrient. In 2006 the FDA admitted bottled fluoride water can make no claims of benefit for infants(12 months and under). The CDC and ADA also cautioned to not use fluoridated water for infant formula ,or drinking or cereals orjuices and so on to reduce dental fluorosis. Ireland had a 9-0 vote to warn against in 2000 but reversed the vote when advised it could put all fluoridation at risk to admit damage to infants. Lies trump truth in government. How stupid do they think citizens are? Without information there is no informed consent. This is not about teeth that is just the tip of the toxic iceberg. It is about cumulative toxicity in seniors that is hidden from us all. Arrogance and stupidity are the foundation of poor government. One of our Publich health officials in Florida Michael Easley DDS stated "nobody drags anyone to a water faucet and makes them drink. Dig a well. Move out of the country." This is the worst kind of home grown terriorist and he is paid the big bucks to insult and injure. Maybe he has helped your people on a consult. Jim Schultz

Mr. Parrott Quack watch is a industry front to support everything non science and Mr Douglass was proven a fool and liar on the fluoridation issue when he sued, went to court and could not even produce one single study of the 200 plus he claimed he had that proved fluoridation effective. He had sued for 200,000 plus for his honor which seems to be worth less then ZERO. A total rubbish site. All sites are not equal--get some standards-think more- question more. The science papers are decent at the government agencies they just refuse to follow the science and the policy is devoid of science often. Power and cash buy policy as lobby write the regulations to benefit themselves. Jim Schultz

Their idea of 'Consultancy' will be to ring a few random residents (probably over August),
and ask them 3 leading questions that are designed to make them say yes.

1. Are you aware that there is a dental health problem in Southampton?
2. Did you know that Fluoride Protects teeth?
3. Would you mind if we topped up the fluoride levels in Southampton?

No opposing argument, No actual facts, No chance to go away and consider.

This is exactly what they've done elsewhere, so we've no reason to believe it won't be the method they use here.

We need to demand a real, open, public debate and bang the drums very loudly!!!

They are frightened of an open public debate because they know they can't possibly win it.
The data is clear.
The safety of Fluoride is far from proven. Far more scientific work is needed.
Who in Southampton would really want to take that risk?
There is every chance that should this be pushed through, some poor soul will pay with his life.
And that could be your or my child.
Hundreds more will have their teeth ruined by dental Fluorosis and be left with a massive bill to put it right.
They won't be paying that bill, we will.
Remember, It will cost you about £200 a tooth to fix privately.

David (ref your 4:44pm letter)

Wikipedia is not the best pathway to knowledge, but click within that page and you'll discover some more intelligent coverage. Anyway, fluorine in nature comes in compound form and of course if you remove many elements from their natural state, all manner of adverse outcomes can result. Man is always trying to copy nature, but usually comes out an inferior 2nd.

For instance, the majority of heavily advertised Vitamin supplements are manufactured in a lab environment and although they have the same formula make-up as with natural ingredients, the human body doesn't recognise them and therefore tend to pass ineffectively through the system. To avoid this, the consumer should write to the vitamin supplier and request confirmation that the vitamins are produced only from natural products. Suppliers of a substandard product will not give you a straight answer, but issue some official-type reply that their vitamins meet the highest industry standard required by law.

p.s. I would add that I didn't state that fluorine was essential for humans, only that it can be beneficial as a trace element.

Quote : by: Wilson, Soton on 5:58pm today
David (ref your 4:44pm letter) p.s. I would add that I didn't state that fluorine was essential for humans, only that it can be beneficial as a trace element.

Mmm - I've turned to Kenneth Hutton's "Chemistry - the Conquest of Materials" (1957). Always a good read! p.40: "And together, again (in Group 7) are fluorine, chlorine and bromine - the first two of these being poisonous gases and all of them highly reactive chemically"

All I'm saying is that the pro-fluoridationists tell us that fluoride is a very plentiful substance and that it's natural and that therefore it does us good. Arsenic is natural as well but unless you have a death wish, I wouldn't wish to regard it as being a beneficial trace element.

The only way in which fluoride could once have been regarded as being beneficial "in the short term" is in a hot bath prescribed by doctors to dampen down a hyperactive thyroid gland (no longer used as is the way with most once- fashionable medical interventions).

I would never willingly ingest fluoride or fluorine since both are poisonous. It really is important not to regard fluoride or fluorine as being something which the human body needs or which is beneficial otherwise the pro-fluoridationists have won a vital part of their argument.

Think I'll give it a rest for today. Over and out.

David

I believe we are in agreement, although you appear fixated with viewing fluorine out of its natural state.

The pro-fluoride lobby has used a study in Orange Country, Calif where higher natural traces of fluorine in the water supply appeared to show reduced tooth decay, a possible example of where trace Fluorine was beneficial.

However, as I summarised in my 4:26pm letter, there's a BIG difference between natural trace fluorine and large scale manufactured fluoride that would be the substance added to water supplies. The industry-backed Pro-group assumes rightly that the public doesn't know the difference and politicians are too wary of losing generous party funds donations.

The local PCT and South Central SHA had better watch out. If they force this on us, they'll be in for trouble! People really aren't idiots you know. We can find out the facts for ourselves - and most of us have done so.
Tell the SHA we don't want our money wasted on an illegal consultation. We don't want it wasted on illegal medication. And we don't want the Chairman, the CEO and the other members of the Board getting paid for trying to poison us. Resign the lot of you - or be pushed out by a lot of well informed, very angry people.

"This survey was carried out on a random sample of the local population earlier this year and represents a robust and reliable measure of public opinion"

Utter Codswallop!!!
It was collected in the misleading and one-sided manner as I
explained earlier in the comments.

He wonders why it conflicts. It's because his 'poll' didn't allow people to go away and consider BOTH sides.
Echo - Can you arrange a public debate between Dr Mortimore and John Spottiswode? preferably on Radio Solent and in a public place?
A real consultation will give evryone effected the real facts. Then they can make their own INFORMED decisions.
I belive the best way is to employ dental health outreach workers in the 11 areas to work with these families.
Last time I look, Toothpaste wasn't expensive. At some point, god help us, people will have to be responsible for their own lives!
If they still allow their childrens teeth to rot away, then that is a criminal matter of abuse and neglect, and not a medical one.

I may not be in the proposed area for water contamination but Fluoride is a poison period !! it is a salt of hydrofluoric acid. Contaminating drinking water is illegal. A stupid idea to correct basic oral hygiene neglect.Using excess sugar and fizzy drinks containing phosphoric acid are the cause of tooth decay, not absence of flouride. Ed Fawley

The PCT would not back this if they had any doubts about it's safety. The proposal would only top up the amount of fluoride to 1 part per million in our water - there are 1000ppm in toothpaste! The children this would benefit need all the help we can offer, their parents ignorance is not their fault.

I'd encourage EVERYONE to read this, if it's the only thing they do tonight:

http://www.befreetec
h.com/fluoridation.h
tm

So some entities from the daily, are deliberatly deleting posts, on purpose!!

It is no coincidence!

We are indeed deliberatly being poisoned with fluoride, which is just one tactic against the populace!

It a sad fact, there are indeed some very nasty evil wicked entities out there, who would kill billions for their very own ends!!

May the Almighty punish these Criminals one day, to what is rightly due to them!!!

Dental nurse wrote:
The PCT would not back this if they had any doubts about it's safety. The proposal would only top up the amount of fluoride to 1 part per million in our water - there are 1000ppm in toothpaste! The children this would benefit need all the help we can offer, their parents ignorance is not their fault.

As has been explained to you before, you don't swallow toothpaste, indeed there are safty warnings on tubes stressing that you should not do so!

If YOU did YOUR job and educated the local children properly then tooth decay would not be a problem..

NOTE: This is a repost of a message deleted by the Echo. I'm not sure why it was deleted..

David, thanks for your message regarding Reverse Osmosis.

However, it should be noted that the Government have stated that they intend to introduce COMPULSORY water meters for ALL domestic customers by 2011.

Danny wrote:
So some entities from the daily, are deliberatly deleting posts, on purpose!! It is no coincidence! We are indeed deliberatly being poisoned with fluoride, which is just one tactic against the populace! It a sad fact, there are indeed some very nasty evil wicked entities out there, who would kill billions for their very own ends!! May the Almighty punish these Criminals one day, to what is rightly due to them!!!

I have noticed that too. Strange that it only seems to be "anti" fluoride posts getting deleted...

It'll be interesting to see how long this post lasts before it gets "censored"..

PCT Worker wrote:
Fluoride is a natral mineral which is already present in our water and untill now you have not complained about having it your water! All we want to do is top up the amount that is present and you would not even notice its there.

So why are they planning on using a DIFFERENT chemical, then?

Will be interesting if they censore this one (again)!

Quackwatch Warning

Yes. When the self-named "Quackbusters" stumbled around to find a derisive name to call their victims, they picked the word "Quack," without ever bothering to discover it's origins. Its original meaning, from Europe, comes from the term "quacksalver" which was used to describe Dentists who were dumb enough to use mercury (a poison) as fillings for teeth. Look at propagandist, and "Quackbuster" king-pin, Stephen Barrett's website (quackwatch.com), and you'll find that HE IS IN FAVOR of mercury (amalgam) tooth fillings.

http://tinyurl.com/6
q4heh

So, Southampton – welcome to the murky world of public opinion polls on water fluoridation! Once again your efforts to find out what the people think has been hacked by those desperate and disillusioned souls who really do believe that the public should be forced to drink fluoridated water, and are willing to do absolutely anything to make sure that all opposition to their own brand of fundamentalism is stifled.

Let's face it – you only got a final vote against fluoridation because one of our own managed to overturn that first hacking by the pro-fluoride hardliners, that saw the 'No' majority almost wiped out after a clear head-start. This kind of scrap goes on all the time – the last one of I recall was a radio poll that had to be cancelled because of just this form of electronic vote-rigging. And only last month a telephone poll on the Isle of Man provoked fury amongst the people because it was loaded in favour of the pro-fluoridation lobby.

Make no mistake, this is a war between the Government and the people. But in his anxiety to force this stuff into our kids Big Bro has blundered (are you surprised?) Fluoridation as practised in England is illegal. It violates both EC and UK laws dealing with medicines and foods, and especially making false medical claims. Yes - claiming that it prevents tooth decay is an offence for which those making this claim can find themselves unexpectedly occupied 'at Her Majesty's pleasure' for up to two years – no medicinal licence, so all claims are off limits! Go get 'em!

You really should have asked us about a poll before you went ahead and got nobbled for your trouble! Do you really imagine that the Health Police will allow you to put it about that you have proof that the public is against fluoridation? Only recently, in an effort to shut the gate before it's too late, the Chief Dental Officer tried to exclude Local Authorities from 'consultation' over fluoridation in their areas, claiming that it is outside the remit of the Health Scrutiny and Oversight Committees. (We've got that nonsense well in hand with our Northern Councils, by the way, but Southern Councils need to come on board too.)

So just let Southampton City Council (and any others whose areas are threatened by the fluoridation cult) know that UK Councils are now getting together nationally to stop Big Brother pushing them out of the arena. The Councils really do need to get up to speed over the real medical and social damage that they will have to deal with once their water supplies are doped with fluoride. Just get them to check out the epidemic of fluoride-related diseases in the Irish Republic. Go to our web site (www.ukcaf.org) for some straight info on who's who and what they are doing in this world of dirty deeds and medical skulduggery. And on what they can do to stop this farce before it's too late.

And whatever you do in future (because, believe me, they WILL be back – polls mean nothing to the fluoride fundamentalists!) if you must have polls, make sure that they can't be tampered with – by either side.

in some areas the level of fluoride naturally in yhe water is low

all fluoridation does is correct that deficiency

there is no risk

nutitioinist wrote:
in some areas the level of fluoride naturally in yhe water is low

all fluoridation does is correct that deficiency

there is no risk

I am oh so glad that you are NOT my nutritionist!

My interest in fluoride started 40 years ago when my family doctor urged me to give my first 2 children fluoride tablets as our water supply was not fluoridated. I was a trained nurse and back then a Doctor's word was gospel, and as he told me "fluoride was good for teeth" I did as advised being very careful of the administration of same.

It took me 10 months to come to the realisation that their severe stomach and skin problems began after only 1 week of taking the fluoride tablets. It wasn't so much a realisation as a reversal of belief. I stopped giving the tablets and hey presto, good health returned.

At the age of 30, my son went to live in a water fluoridated town. He experienced a quick return of his old problems plus more, but it still took several years, many expensive medical tests, much experimenting with diet etc... before the real reason was revealed, once again. His teeth and bones are not very healthy despite fluoride ingestion and his 9 year old son has fluorosis on two front teeth, which was diagnosed by a dentist at the age of 8 years.

My daughter was diagnosed with fluoride toxicity last year, even while living in an un-fluoridated town. She had all the debilitating symptoms of blood poisoning and fluoride being the culprit was a big surprise. Her main source for fluoride came from the many cups of tea she drank each day, as we discovered. It has taken her 14 months to reduce her fluoride level to what is deemed to be an almost 'acceptable' level by the medical fraternity. This was extremely difficult to do because of little information available and no Data Base for Fluoride content in Foods and Beverages. She has been left to deal with the adverse effects of fluoride toxicity on her own, as her doctor did not know anything about it and didn't know what to advise her except to reduce her intake. Her once beautiful teeth, what's left of them, are disgusting and shatter when the dentists tries to drill them! She is just one victim of the fluoride legacy and as Fluoridation has now been Mandated in our country, I fear for her future.

My third child was never exposed to artificial fluoride, never used fluoride toothpaste or any of its derivatives, and his teeth, bones, and general health are near perfect. He is now 34 years old.

How I wish I had had the information I have now, when my first two children were little.
I certainly would NOT have poisoned them by blindly believing a doctor's advice. That doctor, by the way, was our Government Medical Officer at the time and well respected.

I wonder now, what kick backs did he receive for promoting Fluoride?????

I hope this re-count of my experience with fluoride ingestion helps some of you to re-think your stance for advocating artificial fluoridation.

The proposals to fluoridate public water with toxic compounds of hexaflourasilic acid are a direct breech of European regulations forbidding the mass medication of human populations. 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 Fluoride, 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.

Fluoridation of public water supplies should not be allowed!
And here’s 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.

nutitioinist wrote:
in some areas the level of fluoride naturally in yhe water is low

all fluoridation does is correct that deficiency

there is no risk

The European Waste Directive(91/69/EC)w




hich applies EU-wide, classifies inorganic fluorine compounds as hazardous waste. The directive specifically excludes calcium fluoride, the naturally-occurring type which you mistakenly claim is only being topped up by water fluoridation.
To make matters worse this hazardous waste comes with other substances also defined by the Waste Directive as hazardous, including beryllium, chromium VI, arsenic and lead. That is why this toxic chemical, fluorosilicic acid, may not be emitted into air, surface water or the environment where these hazardous substances are extremely harmful; just check the many US pollution incidents revealed by Chris Bryson's "The Fluoride Deception". Only in public health backwaters like Ireland are they allowed into drinking water, where their harmful effects are simply denied.

Fluoride is a KNOWN CANCER CAUSING Agent! It ROTTENS TEETH! The councilmen either don't know or playing dummy! in either case they should Not even debate this issue. Minerals in Water also Absorb Thru Skin specially in warm showers/baths! So don't think you are safe by Not drinking the polluted tab water.It will harm you! Go and search the Internet and see for yourselves!!! Mainstream Media should be the last place to get your info. They've been Known to LIE!Just look up sometimes and see the Jets spraying POISON on us. You Never Hear anything about it. google Chemtrails and see

SAINT BEAN wrote:
\\\"The real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children\\\'s teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper, and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty.\\\"

\\\"When the Nazis under Hitler decided to go to Poland, both the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans, and personnel, and the scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plans to communize the world.\\\"

\\\"I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great I.G. Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years\\\' research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine --- any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically.\\\"

Signed: CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October, 1954.

Amin! I am so glad to see the level of Knowledge has grown so much lately. Sadly some still rely on Mainstream Media to get their info. :(
I tell those people not to be afraid to think for and protect themselves. Thank God we live in the information age and have access to the Internet. We won't be fooled by likes of bbc cnn and other establishment's mouth-pieces any more.
We still have a long way to go. I am not getting any answer for the these Jets spraying chemicals on Southampton every day!? Beautiful blue skies turn into this nasty hazy color?! They do this in USA as well?! heh I wonder why??

PCT Worker wrote:

Steph Martins wrote:

PCT Worker wrote:

Steph Martins wrote:

PCT Worker wrote: Fluoride is a natral mineral which is already present in our water and untill now you have not complained about having it your water! All we want to do is top up the amount that is present and you would not even notice its there.

If it is already present, why is there is still bad teeth? What is the level you want to stop at if we are still getting case of bad teeth - there is no magic figure and like has been said time and time again - people with bad teeth DONT EVEN DRINK THE WATER WE ARE PUTTING THIS UNNECESSARY CHEMICAL IN!! THERE IS A REASON IT SAYS \'DON\'T SWALLOW\' ON YOUR TOOTH PASTE.

That would be because of the other chemicals not flouride.

Ummm, from this link: www.freearticlesarch ive .com/article/What_s_ In_Your _Toothpaste/10618/0/

One of the main ingredients of toothpaste is fluoride. However, some toothpastes contain huge amounts of this chemical. Excessive fluoride inside our system can cause several problems like chronic fatigue, arthritis, rheumatism, constipation, and maybe cancer. According to the World Health Organization and the US Environmental Protection Agency, fluoride is considered to be an unclassifiable carcinogen .

Someone better qualified than you knows different.

Im a scientific doctor of flouride research, so i doubt it.

Anyone who really understands about the highly reactive nature of fluorine and fluorides plus has studied the research would certainly know the many real dangers of fluoride, even at 1ppm in water. This research is now freely available on the Internet and damning of fluoride in its many bad effects of health. It is a strange being that really knows about fluoride and still insists that it is OK to swallow for the rest of your life at an unsafe dose.

Glad to hear you are debating this in public.
Dental fluorosis, which is irreversible enamel damage to children's teeth, is a side effect of fluoridation. Promoters know this and the public need to know it too.
No child must suffer this damage from fluoridation. They deserve better. Harmful fluorides damage health and harmful fluorides are what is used in water fluoridation. Be aware and leave it out of your water. Your children deserve the best water and that means "NO-NO-NO F-L-U-O-R-I-D-A-T-E-
D WATER".

PCT Worker,
I hope that the others on your committee know a little more about fluoride and fluoridation than you do. Sodium fluoride is a naturally occurring chemical, but the stuff they want to poison your water with is not sodium fluoride, its called Hexafluorosilicic acid a very toxic biproduct of the aluminium, ceramics and pesticidss industries and containing residues from these processes. But the point is academic. Both are agressive and toxic on a par with lead or arsenic. It only works topically, ie. applied directly to the teeth and when ingested, only half of it can be excreted, much less is excreted if their is any kidney malfunction. Putting this filth into our water amounts to a war crime and sooner or later the proponents of this outrage will be brought to book. Meanwhile PCT worker, its back to the schoolroom for you i think. Say no to Fluoride and dont pay for poisoned water.

There are some misunderstandings and mistakes here about fluoride's toxicity. The Government of the Republic of Ireland (the world's only democracy with mandatory water fluoridation) put it thus:

"A standard tube of toothpaste contains about 125 gram of toothpaste (generally containing 1500 ppm fluoride); swallowing as little as one-quarter of a tube may be life-threatening for a one-year-old child."
-- page 112, Report of the Forum on Fluoridation (2002).

That was actually one of the few lucid passages in the report, which is otherwise 300 pages of gobbledygook, lies, deception and misrepresentation.

The fluoride added to water (hydrofluorosilicic acid, aka hexafluosilicic) is even more toxic than toothpaste fluoride (source: the bible of fluoride toxicology -- "Fluorine intoxication" by Kaj Roholm, 1937).

Incidentally, the Irish government also emphasized the "consultation" aspect: the Forum on Fluoridation (2000-2002) invited comments from the public. More than 1000 people wrote to the Forum. More than 90% of them wanted fluoridation stopped. The Forum Report ignored their wishes (and rights), dismissed their concerns, and recommended that fluoridation continue. So much for "consultation".

Another interesting fact: there is not one Irish medical doctor willing to defend fluoridation in public debate. Is there such a doctor in England?

Yes Joe T, I agree.
I think we do need educating on the facts about the dangers of flouride intake. A doctor you say to defend flouridation? Well, were we not told in the late 50's that the Falidomide drug was safe?

Marge wrote:
i see small children in buggies drinking coke or squash so strong its hard to believe that there is any water in it - these children will invariably have bad teeth and no matter what you put in the water will no affect that - as they do not drink water in the first place

Yes, Marge I totally agree!! Education is needed here on oral hygiene for children,not a maas medication programme to force-feed fluoride to those who do not need or want it!

I am heartbroken: the Echo deleted my beautifully crafted piece on Reverse Osmosis filtration units. Can't imagine why. Fortunately, I copied my text to Word and here it is for anyone to read again:

"Reverse osmosis (R/O)filtration units cost about £200 each and can be installed by the layman. The filters and membrane often last a lot longer than the manufacturer's recommended 6 months and it is possible to check the total dissolved solids in tap water using a handy little electronic gauge (£25) so that the filters and membrane do not need to be changed quite so often. R/O units use about 5 litres of water for back-flushing the membrane for every 1 litre filtered. If people have a water meter, the installation of an R/O unit is not going to be economical. So - important point - DO NOT CONVERT TO A WATER METER WHILE THE FLUORIDE DEBATE CONTINUES. And then deduct the cost of the R/O unit and filters and membranes from your water charges. You would not be alone in doing this - it's being done already by very many people throughout the fluoridated areas of England."

I speak from first hand experience since I have an R/O unit, I deduct the cost of filters and membrane from my water charges and I haven't yet been taken to County Court even though this is threatened every 6 months. You cannot be made to have a water meter unless you agree to it. Installing water meters for the entire population of a region would be prohibitively expensive. Fight against this and you will win - unlike the poor stultified people in the West Midlands who are not even aware of the damage that fluoride is doing to their libido. Dare I say that they are not aware because the stuffing has been knocked out of them.

Hey everyone, I’ve just come across a beaut of a piece by Antony Lynn on this website - see
http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/search/displa
y.var.2257770.0.igno
rance_distorting_flu
oride_facts.php

His final paragraph states: "If you are unbiased and want the fluoride facts rather than fiction, have a look at the British Fluoridation Society web site at http://www.bfsweb.or
g/ Anthony Lynn, Wellum House Dental Health Centre, Winchester Road, Andover."

Hope you all know about the British Fluoridation Society. It has been funded by the Department of Health for many years. Recently, it's function has been somewhat taken over by the National Fluoride Information Centre based at the University of Manchester - quite a coincidence because the North West and Greater Manchester is due to be fluoridated after Southampton. The Chair of the NFIC is apparently an employee of Colgate.org (according to his biography on the University of Manchester website). Colgate has an interest in selling fluoridated toothpaste and clearly would not want the reputation of fluoride to be trashed since this could affect toothpaste sales and share prices.

Am I cynical or what?

Great news everyone! The Isle of Man will not be fluoridated. A telephone poll came out conclusively against the practice and today, the Island's DHSS has said that they won't pursue the issue any more. YIPPEE! People power can win.

Just got the news David - thank goodness some sanity still prevails somewhere!

This has also happened in Australia several times in the past in different areas. Much time and money has been expended in fear campaigns by the Gov. and ADA in promoting fluoridation; after quite a fight it has been rejected; a 'suitable' amount of time passes and it starts all over again! So our illustrious government in all it's wisdom has Mandated it!!! Now we have to fight to have it removed. Wish us success.

Never in the history of fluoridation has the general public been so well informed as they are today, so hopefully we are seeing the beginning of the end to this totally disgusting practice. Congratulation to the Isle Of Man as they are paving the way towards a healthier future.
--------------------
-----------
EXTRACT:

DHSS listens to public opinion on fluoridation.

Following an extensive consultation process, the Department of Health and Social Security today recommended to the Council of Ministers not to proceed with fluoridating the Island's water. The Council of Minister's have accepted this recommendation.
The issue of fluoridating water has been proposed by various professional bodies and the Health Services Consultative Committee for many years. The Director of Public Health has a statutory duty to raise matters of concern brought to the attention of the Public Health Directorate, with the Department. In order to assess public opinion regarding the addition of fluoride to the Island's water, the Department entered into a public debate. This consultation process has been very helpful to the Department, as it has established current public opinion ...

Gottaliv - you are right. We can't be complacent. They will try again, possibly by the back door. Vigilance is required. However, I hope that the Isle of Man anti-fluoridation movement will help Southampton and Hampshire anti-fluoridation movements to 'oust the beast'.

after one year of consuming flouridated water you will be a different person entirely - it essentially gives you a mini labotomy not to mention all the other dreadful side effects. It's digusting and we all need to do something about it.
Look, CHINA, AUSTRIA, GERMANY, DENMARK etc... have all BANNED it! this country is a test-bed.

It is very rare for a pro fluoride person to mention a specific study. The directives at the associations tell them not to but to use their trust factor.Many avoid reading any of the many current studies that show ingested fluoride only of value to damage children's teeth with porous discolored brittle enamel. The claimed resistance to decay from acid attack is not decreased no matter how high the fluoride content in the enamel. It was only a theory. Featherstone 2000 ..Kids lack nutrition and dentists never fluoride.Burt2007 in Detroit fluoridated 1950. fluoride overexposure is proven by dental fluorosis and poor inner cities are having huge increases of cavities. The sugar drinks for young kids devistates teeth especially in a nap bottle or sippy cup. Uninformed parents or uncaring cause most of this damage. Education not toxic cumulative waste and healthy food with denatal care. The cure is simple but very difficult to change attitude. Government wants a cheap forced solution. Fluoride does not work but it is cheap. fluoridealert.org waterloowatch.com Jim Schultz

It's a great pity that the contributions to this poll network have eased off. Just because the poll has been won, doesn't mean that the battle has been won. Please everyone, don't rest on your laurels: this is just the beginning of a long fight - not the end. You'll get support from antifluoridationist groups from around the country - the groups which are fluoridated and those who don't want to be. In particular, you'll have support from the Fluoride Action Network coordinated by Dr Paul Connett - the man who turned the tide on the Isle of Man.

Calcium fluoride is naturally occurring in small quantities. However Sodium fluoride (poison) google it! in large quantities which is what is being proposed has many negative side effects.

I dont want forced medication... what is this country becoming??? its getting worse than Soviet Russia.

Its a bit like the EU constitution, noone wants it but they insist its for our own good.

AMERICAN LAWYERS PREPARE FOR ACTION AGAINST THE WORLD’S BIGGEST WATER AUTHORITY AND OFFICIALS IMPLEMENTING FLUORIDATION.

At last it appears a fatal blow has been dealt to the shameful policy of fluoridation. On June 9th the largest association of water professionals in the world, The American Water Works Association, was told, “not to destroy, remove, or tamper with documents or video recordings in its possession that may be used in legal actions on behalf of persons injured by drinking fluoridated water.” Attorney Robert Reeves listed AWWA’s HQ, its regional offices, and national and regional officers personally as “potentially responsible parties” that may be the subject of legal actions by kidney patients and others harmed by ingesting fluorides.

This extraordinary development follows the sensational news on June 3rd that the American National Kidney Association admitted chronic kidney disease patients are at risk from fluoridated water. Kathleen Thiessen PhD said, “The National Research Council report indicated that kidney patients, diabetics, infants, and other groups are susceptible population groups.” She was also deeply concerned by the risk of thyroid damage. She felt that black and minority groups were disproportionately harmed by fluoride.

Dr Thiessen’s shock announcement corroborates the findings of Nobel Laureates and international medical and scientific experts, and this explains why 94% of the world has rejected fluoridation. Their highest quality peer-reviewed evidence links fluoride to many fatal and chronic diseases, like cancer and Alzheimer’s. Here, the most influential York Review refused to say fluoridation was safe, cost effective or that it would equalize dental health between rich and poor, as claimed by the fluoride propaganda machine. York also said that if there were any dental benefits they would have to be weighed against the harm. We now know the huge range and extent of the harm to which they were referring.

This ground breaking news confirms that the medical evidence is now so powerful that the perpetrators of fluoridation may well have to stand trial. This should force a refusal to implement fluoridation by British water companies, health authorities and individuals, as they too could face the risk of prosecution.

Local people will not tolerate being bullied by unelected health authorities, or compliant water companies, who are relying on corrupt evidence to justify a corrupt and dangerous policy. But fluoridation is not only dangerous to human health and the environment, it is also a violation of medical ethics and human rights. It is wrong on all counts and must be stopped.

The local Primary Care Trust and board members of South Central SHA should immediately reverse their decision on fluoridation. The suppression of the truth, the total denial of health risks and their refusal to properly inform the public of the potential dangers, indicates that they are morally unfit to hold their positions. They should be sacked or risk the legal consequences now facing their American counterparts. This also applies to Southern Water and other water companies. Everyone responsible for fluoridation has been informed of the dangers, but rather than protect the public they have deliberately chosen to put them at risk, probably in order to save their jobs. Shame on them.

To confirm the AWWA news go to www.fluoridealert.or
g. Beware – do not type in fluoridealert.com or .co as this is a propaganda site whose address has been deliberately set up to mislead the public.

The following post is available as a highly condensed landscape A4 duplex capable single sheet document for Word specifically formatted to be used as a flyer for home delivery. If you want it contact griffithspeter0@goog
lemail.com

sorry about the small print!

GIVE YOUR KIDS THE GIFT OF BONE CANCER, BRAIN DAMAGE AND STERILITY

The proposals to fluoridate public water with toxic compounds of hexafloruasilic acid are a direct breech of European regulations forbidding the mass medication of human populations. It is also an offence under section 23 of the offences against the person Act of 1861. The Water Supply (Fluoridation Indemnities) (England) Regulations 2005 (Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 920) were a specific attempt by the government to provide the water supply industry with "blanket" immunity against civil and criminal liability arising out of these criminal acts. Poisoning by Fluoride, 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.

Fluoridation of public water supplies should not be allowed! And here’s 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 the 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
.1 Applying the NAEP code of ethics to the Environmental Protection Agency and the fluoride in drinking water standard. Carton, R.J. and Hirzy, J.W. Proceedings of the 23rd Ann. Conf. of the National Association of Environmental Professionals. 20-24 June, 1998. GEN 51-61. On-line at URL http//:www.rvi.net/~

fluoride/naep.htm. 2 Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior, A. and Kernan, W.J. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 17 169-177 (1995). 3 Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Z.Z. Guan, Y.N. Wang, K.Q. Xiao, D.Y. Dai, Y.H. Chen, J.L. Liu, P. Sindelar and G. Dallner, Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20 537-542 (1998).4 Chronic administration of aluminum- fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Varner, J.A., Jensen, K.F., Horvath, W. And Isaacson, R.L. Brain Research 784 284-298 (1998). 5 Effect of high fluoride water supply on children’s intelligence. Zhao, L.B., Liang, G.H., Zhang, D.N., and Wu, X.R. Fluoride 29 190-192 (1996). 6 Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Li, X.S., Zhi, J.L., and Gao, R.O. Fluoride 28 (1995). 7 Effect of fluoride on the physiology of the pineal gland. Luke, J.A. Caries Research 28 204 (1994). 8 Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years. Schlesinger, E.R., Overton, D.E., Chase, H.C., and Cantwell, K.T. JADA 52 296-306 (1956). 9 Memorandum dated May 1, 1990. Subject: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride Report; From: Wm. L. Marcus, Senior Science Advisor ODW; To: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division ODW. 10 Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991). 11a Chromosome aberrations, sister chromatid exchanges, unscheduled DNA synthesis and morphological neoplastic transformation in Syrian hamster embryo cells. Tsutsui et al. Cancer Research 44 938-941 (1984). 11b Cytotoxicity, chromosome aberrations and unscheduled DNA synthesis in cultured human diploid fibroblasts. Tsutsui et al. Mutation Research 139 193-198 (1984). 11c Positive mouse lymphoma assay with and without S-9 activation; positive sister chromatid exchange in Chinese hamster ovary cells with and without S-9 activation; positive chromosome aberration without S-9 activation. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium fluoride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTP Report No. 393 (1991). 11d An increase in the number of Down’s syndrome babies born to younger mothers in cities following fluoridation. Science and Public Policy 12 36-46 (1985). 12 A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. Cohn, P.D. New Jersey Department of Health (1992). 13 Surveillance, epidemiology and end results (SEER) program. National Cancer Institute in Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. F1-F7 (1991). 14 New evidence on fluoridation. Diesendorf, M., Colquhoun, J., Spittle, B.J., Everingham, D.N., and Clutterbuck, F.W. Australian and New Zealand J. Public Health. 21 187-190 (1997). 15a Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture: U.S. white women aged 65 years and older. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Miles, ,T.P. et al. JAMA 264 500-502 (1990). 15b Hip fracture and fluoridation in Utah’s elderly population. Danielson, C., Lyon, J.L., Egger, M., and Goodenough, G.K. JAMA 268 746-748 (1992). 15c The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older: a national ecological study. Jacobsen, S.J., Goldberg, J., Cooper, C. and Lockwood, S.A. Ann. Epidemiol.2 617-626 (1992). 15d Fluorine concentration is drinking water and fractures in the elderly . Jacqmin-Gadda, H., Commenges, D. and Dartigues, J.F. JAMA 273 775-776 (1995). 15e Water fluoridation and hip fracture . Cooper, C., Wickham, C.A.C., Barker, D.J.R. and Jacobson, S.J. JAMA 266 513-514 (1991). 16 Water fluoridation and tooth decay: Results from the 1986-1987 national survey of U.S. school children. Yiamouyannis, J. Fluoride 23 55-67 (1990). 17 Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. and Green, E.L. New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47. 18 Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. Colquhoun, J. Perspectives in Biol. and Medicine 41 29-44 (1997). 19 A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any anti-caries benefit from swallowing fluoride? Limeback, H. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 62-71 (1999). 20 Fluoride supplements for young children: an analysis of the literature focussing on benefits and risks. Riordan, P.J. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 72-83 (1999). 21 Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride. Featherstone, J.D. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 27 31-40 (1999). 22 Appendix H. Review of fluoride benefits and risks. Department of Health and Human Services. H1-H6 (1991). 23 Some young children get too much fluoride. Parker-Pope, T. Wall Street Journal Dec. 21, 1998. 24 Letter from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, to Leslie Russell re: EPA view on use of by-product fluosilicic acid as low cost source of fluoride to water authorities. March 30, 1983. OTHER CITATIONS a Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates. Freni, S.C. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 42 109-121 (1994). bAmeliorative effects of reduced food-borne fluoride on reproduction in silver foxes. Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., Krook, L., and Carmichael, D.T. Cornell Vet. 78 75-91 (1988). cMilk production of cows fed fluoride contaminated commercial feed. Eckerlin, R.H., Maylin, G.A., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 76 403-404 (1986). dMaternal-fetal transfer of fluoride in pregnant women. Calders, R., Chavine, J., Fermanian, J., Tortrat, D., and Laurent, A.M. Biol. Neonate 54 263-269 (1988). eEffects of fluoride on screech owl reproduction: teratological evaluation, growth, and blood chemistry in hatchlings. Hoffman, D.J., Pattee, O.H., and Wiemeyer, S.N. Toxicol. Lett. 26 19-24 (1985). fFluoride intoxication in dairy calves. Maylin, G.A., Eckerlin, R.H., and Krook, L. Cornell Vet. 77 84-98 (1987). gFluoride inhibition of protein synthesis. Holland, R.I. Cell Biol. Int. Rep. 3 701-705 (1979). hAn unexpectedly strong hydrogen bond: ab initio calculations and spectroscopic studies of amide-fluoride systems. Emsley, J., Jones, D.J., Miller, J.M., Overill, R.E. and Waddilove, R.A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 103 24-28 (1981). iThe effect of sodium fluoride on the growth and differentiation of human fetal osteoblasts. Song, X.D., Zhang, W.Z., Li, L.Y., Pang, Z.L., and Tan, Y.B. Fluoride 21 149-158 (1988). jModulation of phosphoinositide hydrolysis by NaF and aluminum in rat cortical slices. Jope, R.S. J. Neurochem. 51 1731-1736 (1988). kThe crystal structure of fluoride-inhibited cytochrome c peroxidase. Edwards, S.L., Poulos, T.L., Kraut, J. J. Biol. Chem. 259 12984-12988 (1984). lIntracellular fluoride alters the kinetic properties of calcium currents facilitating the investigation of synaptic events in hippocampal neurons. Kay, A.R., Miles, R., and Wong, R.K.S. J. Neurosci. 6 2915-2920 (1986). mFluoride intoxication: a clinical-hygienic study with a review of the literature and some experimental investigations. Roholm, K. H.K. Lewis Ltd (London) (1937). nToxin-induced blood vessel inclusions caused by the chronic administration of aluminum and sodium fluoride and their implications for dementia. Isaacson, R.L., Varner, J.A., and Jensen, K. F. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 825 152-166 (1997). oAllergy and hypersensitivity to fluoride. Spittle, B. Fluoride 26 267-273 (1993). *For Correspondence: Bill Hirzy, NTEU Headquarters, Box 76082 Washington, DC 20013. TO RECEIVE THIS DOCUMENT AS AN EMAIL TXT YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO 07510258880
‡For a history of how drinking water fluoridation began, see "Fluoride, Teeth and the Atomic Bomb", by investigative reporters Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson ,

on-line at http://www.ia4u.net/

~sherrell/bomb.htm.
‡‡http://www.rvi.net

/~fluoride/amicus.ht

m
*PLEASE PHOTOCOPY THIS DOCUMENT FOR YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS-GET THE TRUTH OUT*

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.

UK Chief Dental Officer has not replied to this damning proof of his unworthiness (abridged):
Your letter begins with the irrelevant fact that “Dental amalgam has been used as a dental filling material since the 1800s”. Why should you mention that but fail to mention the infinitely more relevant fact that the modern standard non-gamma-2 amalgams, which emit 30-50 times as much mercury vapour, were only introduced from the 1970s onwards? And anyway, just because people were using asbestos for many decades that did not constitute evidence of safety.

More importantly, you would have me believe about the SCENIHR 2007 report that “This report has superceded all of the publications that you have cited.”

Included among those cited publications were the review of 25 studies “Effects of Amalgam Removal on Health” by Mats Hanson, 2004, and the later Wojcik et al 2006. That is 26 studies comprising nearly 6000 patients, and the results strongly indicate that “there is hardly any medical treatment that gives so positive results on so many health problems as amalgam removal.” This is damning evidence that amalgam is very harmful and has caused exactly the symptoms with which I am afflicted, and that removal is a most effective treatment.

Now turning to the SCENIHR report, its 71 pages completely fail to even mention those 26 damning studies. Indeed it does not include any review of removal studies at all.
That may go some way to explaining why your supposedly superceding report has not impressed Sweden, Norway and Denmark into halting their banning of amalgam just a few months later.