I used to think fluoride was great too. But, over the past few months I have been investigating it intensly. I have found nothing but propaganda in the documentation written by the pro-fluoride groups.
One of the most recognisable lies is the statement made that fluoride is a mineral. It is, however, hexafluorasilicic acid(own abbr.HFS) IS NOT. In order to be a mineral it must fit the critera of being naturally formed. HFS is a chemical by=product that is expensive to dispose of. What better way is there to dispose of it than to get the public to by it.
Currently, under EU law, it is illegal to mass medicate in this way. However, the UK have opted out of this section of EU law for now but it will soon be inforced for all members of the EU to comply to all parts of the directive.
I would suggest to the powers that be, stop pushing the poisoning of your countries people and let fluoridation quietly slip under the carpet before people start suing! Shortly, all those people in the midlands are going to be wanting their compensation for things from fluorosis etc.
Anyone who wants to know more about fluoride should read fluoride - drinking ourselves to death. You will be able to make guesses about why the powers that be are inflicting this on the population. Initial costs of rewriting text books would be a big enough cost without the addition of medical claims. To string it out is just increasing the posisble cost in the future. Fluoridation will crash with as much force as the current financial market has, the severity depends on if it happens now or later.

Flouridation makes about as much sense as swallowing sun cream to protect yourself from skin cancer.
Fluoride works topically, when used with toothpaste. Swallowed, it can only build up in the body and damage other tissues such as our bones, thyroid, and brains.
23 Studies worldwide link it to a lowering of IQ in children.
If this was happening in France, all HELL would be breaking loose.
Unfortunately in the UK we are apathetic sheep who believe we have no power to stop the state making monumentally stupid decisions like these. We just sit back and take it with a whimper.
If this comes in, I will be moving house to escape it.
as recently as January of this year
Scientific American (not exactly a crank journal) published an article entitled 'Second thoughts about Flouridation'. There is no noticeable difference between dental decay between the fluoridated states and unfluoridated ones. at Best, It's a total WASTE of our money.
Over £600,000 wasted that could have been spent on the families that actually needed the help.

I'm willing to concede that there's enough doubt about fluoridation to have made me question my own former views, and yes Jim, I will go and research the matter again. But I still have to say to all the antis, that fluoridation is only there to address a particular medical problem (tooth decay in children) - it's not there as part of some weird experiment on humanity. So what should we do instead? I've put forward my views previously but I want to hear what anti fluoride campaigners would do. We don't need sophistry on the definition of a mineral; that's pointless and counter productive. I want to know your alternative plan to address the problem that fluoridation is supposed to be addressing. If you don't have a counter proposal you aren't moving the argument along. You aren't helping.

comment_6870191_full wrote:
I'm willing to concede that there's enough doubt about fluoridation to have made me question my own former views, and yes Jim, I will go and research the matter again. But I still have to say to all the antis, that fluoridation is only there to address a particular medical problem (tooth decay in children) - it's not there as part of some weird experiment on humanity. So what should we do instead? I've put forward my views previously but I want to hear what anti fluoride campaigners would do. We don't need sophistry on the definition of a mineral; that's pointless and counter productive. I want to know your alternative plan to address the problem that fluoridation is supposed to be addressing. If you don't have a counter proposal you aren't moving the argument along. You aren't helping.

Andy, the solution to the problem of tooth decay in children is simple:

Educate parents to teach their children all about looking after their teeth. There are plenty of leaflets etc. available explaining that sugar and fruit juice damages teeth, and about brushing correctly twice a day using a good quality fluoride toothpaste.

If in any doubt, talk to a dentist about it.

It's best for a parent to clean the child's teeth correctly whilst teaching him/her until you feel that the child can do the job well.

But all that already exists Rob and it doesn't work. Decay rates in Southampton's children are really poor and yes it may be among the Sunny Delight Society but the children still deserve and need protection. My suggestion is to bring back compulsory dental checking in schools and make parents liable for neglect if treatment is offered and not taken. But I want to hear these sort of ideas from the fluoride critics, because they act as though fluoridation is an end in itself by some kind of weird machiavellian oppressive government, rather than a blunt (and possibly risky) tool to fix an existing problem. Why people come on here with a googlefull of selected internet facts and don't even mention the problem fluoride is supposed to fix, beats me. Finding solutions is whole lot tougher than rubbishing an existing plan but if you aren't going to even attempt it then the point is wasted.

Southampton PCT appear to be flooding the area with reply-paid postcards for people to say how much they approve of the Fluoridation plans. Is it not a little incongruous that there is no space on the postcard for a contrary opinion? I expect that if someone were to disapprove, their opinion would be ignored, and the PCT would just crow about how many replies that it had received.
It still remains truen that most of the people at which fluoridation is aimed, are the least likely to either drink tap-water, or to clean their teeth.

I know - fluoridate Sunny Delight!

Sadly, the problem lies across the board. In the more wealthy, they have to work more to pay for the things they have invested in and have less and less time for family. And in the poorer, they care less. Both groups throw money and objects at children instead of time. One grou due to the lack of time, the other because they cant be bothered. Not ALL people in both brackets are the same!!!(before I get jumped on!)
TPTB (powers that be) will not ban the rubbish in our diet because they profit from it. Cue, codex alimentarius which will come into play next year requiring irradiation of all foods (and the irradication of all medicinal nutrients in them due to it.)
Countless papers have done polls on fluoridation to find the public severely diapprove and yet the government states most people want it!?
Andy, Ireland has been fluoradated since the 70's and yet it has the worst dental caries record IN THE UK and has at minimum 48% of detal fluorosis in its children. The town with the lowest is non-fluoridated (I forget which, I think It begins with F and will route it out if required.)
As foods we eat already contain higher levels of fluoride than stated will be added to the water, why do they need to add it at all?
The cause of tooth decay is sugar, even if fluoride worked, which it doesn't, it would not solve the problem of sugar on the teeth.
We have approached our school head, and although she is personally interested she has told us that she cannot teach anything other than what the local authority tells her.
Dentists are the same, although more and more are 'coming out' to fluoride.
All members of the deciding panels for what was to be accepted as suitable for the review of fluoride were pro-fluoride. You could not join if you were anti but you could be on the advisory panel which does not give you any powers other than an advisory nature.
Now, would you expect all the members of a deciding panel about the rights and wrongs of fox-hunting to be fox-hunters? then how is it acceptable for such a massive review to be done on a one-sided basis with regards to decisions about human health?
I'm sure they didnt PLAN that.
Also, ALL studies regarding animals were discounted for inclusion to the study...even lipstick is tested on animals before human use. Why would they bypass those studies for something as dangerous as hexafluorasilicic acid?

Rebecca Hamner from the United States Environmental Protection Agency wrote in 1983; “In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized.”

In response to the above comment, Dr. Hirzy, Senior Vice-President of one of the EPA Headquarters Union wrote; "If this stuff gets out into the air, it's a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it's a pollutant; if it gets into the lake, it's a pollutant; but if it goes right straight into your drinking water system, it's not a pollutant. That's amazing!"

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
But all that already exists Rob and it doesn't work. Decay rates in Southampton's children are really poor and yes it may be among the Sunny Delight Society but the children still deserve and need protection. My suggestion is to bring back compulsory dental checking in schools and make parents liable for neglect if treatment is offered and not taken. But I want to hear these sort of ideas from the fluoride critics, because they act as though fluoridation is an end in itself by some kind of weird machiavellian oppressive government, rather than a blunt (and possibly risky) tool to fix an existing problem. Why people come on here with a googlefull of selected internet facts and don't even mention the problem fluoride is supposed to fix, beats me. Finding solutions is whole lot tougher than rubbishing an existing plan but if you aren't going to even attempt it then the point is wasted.

I have indeed obtained a fair few googled facts, but I do not follow blindly.
I have myself reviewed the ACTUAL studies involving children and animals. Some have involved massive indepth scientific information of varing doses of both organic and non-organic fluorides and I have had to work had to obtain the scientific knowledge to understand them.
I am concerned that there is a blatant refusal to look at these by those making the decisions who still go by the 'mmmm, fluoride good' selection process.
They are clever people in high places who are opting to refuse to accept certain aspects that dont fit their design. And yet, they are in powerful enough positions to make that decision for us!
They are either stupid or have another agenda.