“No one has the right to deny the benefits of fluoridation to those that might need it.”

I am not for denying those rights either - but what about those who do NOT need fluoridation? What about my rights as someone who brushes his teeth?

how about giving them free mouth wash them to use

It took me 2 years to find an NHS dentist so it's not been that easy.

You Limeies just need to brush your teeth more often than once a week.

If it is easy to find a NHS dentist, what am I doing wrong? I cannot find one within reasonable travelling distance.

erroneousapostrophe wrote:
You Limeies just need to brush your teeth more often than once a week.

You forget that this whole fluoridisation business started in America in the 1950's and is where at the moment hundreds of people are suing the Government because of the results of it. Get up to date, mate.

Fluoridation was about protecting industry from lawsuits and for them to make money disposing of toxic fluoride waste. In 1996 after a freedom of information document release you can read exactly how this fraud has developed. The shameless con men of the health departments know they add raw concentrated smokestack from pollutions scrubbers. They claim thousands of studies but have not even done one chronic study ever with emerical data on H2SiF6 which is used in 90% of fluoridation. This was admitted to congress in 2000 testimony. AWWA b703-06 is the standard with over a full page of deadly contaminates most radioactive. Ask your water department for a copy and be shocked. This is bait and switch of the lowest form. Unmentioned is that ZERO current research can show benefit from ingested fluorides as the theory of fluoridation was just theory. Now it is claimed a topical benefit but ZERO research to show it happens at 1ppm. Your health department just claimed toothpaste below 1000ppm to weak to be of topical value for young kids. Yet they claim 1ppm ingested a huge value. Stupid,Stupid. Look at a study from Detroit where after over 50 years of fluoridation it is admitted nutrition and lack of dentists is the problem. Burt 2007. and Pizzo 2008 shows 51% of kids fluoride toxic with dental fluorosis and no decrease in social inequities. Also when fluoridation ends cavities do not increase but often decrease. The science shows fluoridation a huge cumulative risk as the 2006 NRC 507 pages showed. The scientists of the EPA unions have fought against fluoridation as a fraud from 1986 until 2008 feb 29 with 19 unions wanting immediate moratorium. Read the position papers on the EPA scientist site...nteu280.org. also fluoridealert.org waterloowatch.com. Watch dozens of short videos by the real experts and understand how to the bone dishonest the health department shills are. They lack integrty on every level. Informed consent can only happen when informed of all potential negatives. The York review clearly showed 48 % with fluoride toxicity to enamel but never a single high quality bias unlikely study ever. Only bias studies can show benefit where it does not exist. Interexaminer variability is much larger the what you are looking for. Studies without proper control of variables are worse then worthless. They refuse to mention delayed eruption from fluoride exposure. To show how little dentists know about current fluoride science go to pub med and read Yoder K.M. which shows 17% Indiana and 14% Illinois of dental professionals even understood fluoridation has little ingested benefit. Ignorant dentists still wish to force this policy and if they claim no negative health effects that really is a medical diagnosis they are unqualifed to make. Read the science and protect yourself from overdose of this cumulative toxin with ZERO ingested benefit.