Fluoridation plan praised (From Daily Echo)

the fasist state is here

thats fascist state

There is no freedom of speech anymore, there is no democracy. Unelected people continue to make decisions despite the public making it clear they don't want it. I hope it goes to the European Court because this is a complete violation of our human rights. Lets change it for the parents that can't look after their kids dental health properly! And for those who will buy bottled water, watch the price of that shoot through the roof!

It's great to know I'll no longer have to clean my teeth. My dental health is now the responsibility of the government, nothing is my fault.

When are they going to add vitamins and minerals to the water so I can stop eating all that pesky fruit and veg?

"Glowing praise – from a national association of dentists and doctors"

These sell outs need to stop thinking in terms of their next Yacht and start thinking of the people.

"Professor Richard Parish, chief executive of the Royal Society for Public Health, praised the SHA and Southampton City Primary Care Trust for their “careful and painstaking evaluation of the evidence”.

Utter b******s
During the final meeting, one of the panel actually asked, 'Is fluorosis permanent?"
Yeah, She'd really painstakingly looked at the evidence, I don't think.

The whole thing was a set-up and a complete sham.

People have to have the choice whether they want this Fluordation or not, how can any government just force this onto it's population. It could be that parents can get their free fluoride tablets at the chemist or from their dentist, there you go a nice simple answer and everyone would be happy!!

For or against, I think both sides have had enough of a say, I for one am fed up to the back teeth with flouride.

To Voice of freedom---Excellent job of history and science- Strange we hear so little logic or science from the promoters. If they had it they would use it so instead they line up organizations and use trust instead of science. Professionalism seems to sell very cheaply on fluoridation. It defies logic how dental fluorosis can just be written off as a slight cosmetic effect. It is natures lab test for fluoride toxicity . You can see the teeth but the bones and other tissue capture far greater amounts of this cumulative toxin but the effects are hidden and not looked for. Ignored by design.
Not mentioned was the corrosion damage the H2SiF6 AWWA b703-06 product actually causes to water and equipment. It is exceptional corrosive and at 1ppm does leach lead like crasy from brass, solder ,shut offs, meters ,fixtures etc. Even lead free brass has 8% lead in the US. This is well documented with children proven to have higher lead levels at Dartmouth in 1995 with Masters and Coplan. In 2007 Maas and ,Coplan 2007 in seperate studies showed how disinfectants combined to make it more destructive. Washington Dc from 2000-2004 had the worst water in the US with lead levels hundreds and even thousands of times over the limit of 15ppb. They hid this for over two years and fired the employee who leaked the information to the public. A though cover up was done by the CDC and DC health department to claim none were damaged over the years. The Washington Post is now showing this was a lie.. Marc Edwards award winning engineer with others put the data together as the DC health department lost most of theirs. This shows clearly the evil intent to cover their butts with no concern for the public health. This is about creating data and ignoring huge amounts of data showing risk. If you control every aspect of the game you can control the outcome or at least of reports. This DC problem was outright fraud between agencies. Fluoridation makes water treatment more difficult and risky. Yes the products are cheap as it is toxic waste from smokestack pollution scrubbers usually. You must then add expensive chemicals to control the corrosion.
Hidden from the public is phosphate mines also produced uranium yellowcake when they could make money. When the price fell in the 1990's it slowed down and stopped in 1998 in Florida. All the radioactivity is just left in the products or huge radioactive waste piles spread around west coast central Florida. This area is a huge radioactive wasteland with large radon problems even after reclaiming by covering up with dirt.
Your professionals seem every bit as science ignorant as ours. Arrogant yes . http://tinyurl.com/Y
oder shows how dental professionals scored on fluoride science. Utter failure but they get the old theory correct. They do not yet know ingested preruptive was only a theory no known false. The foundation of fluoridation still. Any measurable benefit is topical and your health service last Aug did admitt anything less then 1000ppm fluoride toothpaste had little value for young kids. How could 1ppm have any value as it swills down the throat? It does not is the answer. It does have toxic potential over time as it is cumulative and babies kidneys remove very little fluoride13% and only work up to 50% as the get older. As seniors it drops below 50% or as kidney patients or diabetics often. The National Institute of health was warning diabetics if they asked back in 1991 to drink bottled water if you had the typical higher water intake.The safety data did not consider high use or health risk factors. Strange the SDWA says those at greatest risk must be protected with a extra margin of safety. They are not. Buyer beware. You will be lied to. The 1993 US Tox profile has a long list of those at risk. The overwelming majority are in at least one risk group. Most in several. They included seniors over 50, diabetics, kidney disease, heart patients, low in calcium , magnesium, vitamin C or protein. I just read a government article saying 80% were low on calcium and one saying 9 of ten young girls were but only 7 of ten boys. But the article was about bone health not teeth but then they are bone structure also. Thuis is like ignoring the elephant in the room.. Or maybe the king has no cloths. We can see it -are our experts blind for some reason? Jim Schultz

Nai Sorc wrote:
For or against, I think both sides have had enough of a say, I for one am fed up to the back teeth with flouride.

Hear, hear Nai, give us some news items with a bit of bite to them, ones that will really enamel us to get our teeth stuck in.

Florida has Dentist Michael Easley on the payroll and he was quoted last year saying to those who did not want fluoridation "nobody drags anyone to a water faucet and makes them drink. Dig a well. Move out of the country." Public servent is his title. Contempt is his speciality. Infants have no choice and the CDc and ADa both warned in NOV 2006 to not use fluoridated water to make infant formula. Babies have huge fluid intakes like 2.5 oz per pound or WHO guidelines of 6 oz per kilo. This means a 200 pound adult would drink about 4 gallons to equal a child. Not possible but all babies do it. They have much higher fluoride intakes. Nature like mentioned by voice filters out fluoride from mothers milk.. In non fluoridated areas it is .005ppm which is 250 times less then 1ppm. Nature protect infants from neurotoxins as the blood brain barrier is not complete yet. Connett now uses this newer number and the 100 times or .01ppm was for women in fluoridated areas.
The most current study in Iowa Warren and Levy 2008 dec shows little reduction of cavities from increased fluoride dose but direct relationship to dental fluorisis. They stated it is almost impossibe for the average person to figure fluoride dose and mentioned it is not possible for dentists either. The WHO did state it is improper to fluoridate untill you know current exposure . The goal of fluoridation in 1945 was to not have more then 10% of children damaged with the very slighest dental fluorosis. Double of that is common in non fluoridated areas as foods and beverages are so contaminated now and high exposures to toothpastes and dental products. The very first 1945 experment at the 1962 Russel reporting had 19.2% whites and 40.3% blacks with dental fluorosis. This was not shared with the public and especially blacks as that is the prime target group today. Why hurt those you claim to help. Colleteral damage happens. Police state powers of the soverign are far more important then individual rights. They must protect policy to maintain trust. Lie harder and better. The US health department gave total support and closed the investigation in 1950 after just 5 years into 10 and 15 year trials. Adult teeth were just getting rady to pop out. This was blind faith based on theory and very faulty deceptive methology. Fraud is a shorter word. Professor Sutton did a complete analysis of the deception in about 1995. I am constantly shocked just how ignorant the fluoridation promoters are. Most read almost no studies but just repeat talking points and list endorsements and make grand claims of thousands of stdies but never mention a single one. The 2000 York review looked at the studies and shockingly discovered not a single high quality bias unlikely class a study ever. Lots of poor quality ,prove nothing lousey studies. The York is still claimed to prove safety and benefit which it did neither. The heald writer of the study had to correct the false claims. The big issue is not teeth but total toxic exposure and diseases of aging worsened or caused. More lead and arsenic in our water from the product also. This is a lose ,lose on many levels.
The Detroit Burt 2007 study showed after 50 years of fluoridation almost 100% of 5 year olds with cavities and out of control non treated cavities in 75% of the 12-14 year olds. These kids are fluoride toxic and drink fluoridated water, soda and chips(snacks in US).. Almost no vegetables or fruits and little if any dental care and parents who do not assist in brushing. A very tough problem to cure so they just fluoride poison them instead and ignore the damage they do. Increasing cavities are out of control in long fluoridated poor inner cities in the US. Remember it is well documented blacks are damaged double with moderate and severe dental fluorosis. Ignoring the truth does not make it better. The UK is had said fluoridation would only benefit the lowest two social classes. Actually they are damaged the worst. Government can screw up anything. They do that very well.

After reading the above I am indeed concerned - I listen to the fore's and against but I lean towards the 'against'. To take this further, apparently, is very expensive - but I do urge you all somehow support the body that is prepared to pursue this. It will be people -v- South Central Stragenic Health Authority (SHA) but I feel its a matter of a dominating body of people who are hell bent in 'controlling' the masses.

goard

Considering dose is the issue with regards to toxins, I would like to see someone try to demonstrate how an individuals dose of fluoride chemical can be controlled when fluoride is distributed through our water supply, both to avoid any toxic effects and to gain the so called benifit per day. All other possible daily fluoride sources such as; food intake, medications, toothpaste, what they inhaled, what they absorbed through dermal absorption would need to be considered.
Also existing individual fluoride levels are unknown and ignored as well as an individuals health status, perhaps immune deficiencies, nutritional deficiencys, allergy/intollerence
s, kidney problems,thyroid issues, cancer,diabeties, existing bone diseases.
An individuals dose can never be calculated so this in itself makes artificial fluoridaton simply illogical and dangerous.
As long as artificial fluoridation violates laws and peoples freedom and remains to be proven safe and effective, I think it would be more reasonable for people who want these chemicals at unnatural levels to pay for and provide it for themselves, although I personally would advise against it.
To much fluoride is dangerous maybe this is why the majority of fresh water surfaces on the planet are naturally low in fluoride, 0.2 to 0.3 ppm

This link www.pauapress.com/fl
uoride/files/1418.pd
f accesses information about adverse health effects from fluoridation that The Establishment claims do not exist.

Via this link you can access, free, Dr Bruce Spittle's book "Fluoride Fatigue" that is sub-titled "Fluoride Poisoning: is fluoride in your drinking water and from other sources making you sick?"

Please turn to page 76 and read about the author who has received numerous medical awards and prizes.

Dr Spittle is the Managing Editor of "Fluoride" the official journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research and has meticulously referenced "Fluoride Fatigue" for the doubting Thomases who still think that fluoridation is safe for all.

killer wrote:
thats fascist state

It sure is!

Whatever happened to democracy, or aren't we allowed to ask such questions?

anomalon wrote:
It's great to know I'll no longer have to clean my teeth. My dental health is now the responsibility of the government, nothing is my fault. When are they going to add vitamins and minerals to the water so I can stop eating all that pesky fruit and veg?

LOL nice one i think that they should add food as well that would save on our shopping bills

The National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health is indeed correct in believing that "fluoridation will have a bigger impact on dental health in the city than any other measure...".

But it won't be beneficial impact!

In five years from when fluoridation is implemented, upwards of 30% of 5-year-old school children will exhibit visible signs of having been chronically fluoride poisoned during the development of their teeth (dental fluorosis) and 1 to 2 of every one hundred of these school children will have visible signs of suffering from dental fluorosis of aesthetic concern that will eventually require cosmetic dentistry to hide the disfigurement.

In case you hadn't noticed it, this seemingly reputable 'National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health' is yet another manifestation of the web of linkages that the fanatics of the British Fluoridation Society (BFS) has forged over the years to inflate the apparent support for fluoridation within the health sector.

As an indicator of its reliability in providing support for fluoridation, consider this. One of the Members of the Alliance, the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry (BASCD), collects dental health statistics in the UK on which many of the pro-fluoridation arguments are based. So did you know that a past President of the BASCD is still a Director of the BFS?

How many people remember the highly creative interpretation of the 'official' BASCD dental health statistics when the fluoride crusade started in Southampton? The SHA claimed that 'Southampton's kids have some of the worst teeth in the country!' - in fact dental decay rates in the City's 11 year-olds are well below Government targets, and have been for ten years. How do we know? The BASCD's own data show this - but this inconvenient evidence was mysteriously ignored by the rather selective SHA when it attempted to generate support for its plan to fluoridate the City.

So it's a little alarming that this apparently authoritative Alliance includes a Member that issued the advice to dental health data collectors that they should ignore teeth that have even moderate or severe fluorisis, and count them as 'sound'. You've seen the photos of this condition - dental fluorosis is the 'hidden epidemic' that erupts wherever water is fluoridated. And they want people to ignore it?

Yet in the UK there are no statistics on how many people have fluorosis, and how severely (in Ireland, 37% of the population has it). Just try to find the prevalence of fluorosis in the fluoridated West Midlands, for example. Its been very carefully hidden from the public, yet one of our dental advisers has veneered the teeth of dozens of people from Birmingham whose teeth have been ravaged by fluorosis.

Frankly, having a 'health' policy endorsed by this Alliance should ring alarm bells in every Council Office in the country. Whilst the Dept of Health diverted public attention across the country with its spurious 'Consultation' programme in Southampton , the fluoridationists were beavering away everywhere, getting new projects under way from North Somerset to Essex, Bristol to Buxton.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics - and the worst of these is the deliberate misuse of statistics. Whilst even many professional scientists have problems understanding statistics, when it comes to the dental sector they appear to be completely incapable of using any statistical data without misleading both themselves and the public. The 'league tables' of dental health that have been repeatedly used by the fluoride apologists have been equally often criticised by reputable expert scientists. The York Review authors themselves dismissed these very same 'league tables' as unscientific, yet the dentists and their allies continue to argue the supposed merits of their fake medicine on the basis of their own incompetent understanding of these spurious 'official' statistics.

My advice is to ignore such clap-trap – these 'health professionals' may appear to be authoritative, but when it comes down to basics, they are still hopelessly in the dark. The dental profession managed to poison millions of people with mercury in tooth fillings - now they want us all to swallow another dangerous chemical, fluoride. It's not surprising that the dental profession is bringing itself into utter disrepute. It it doesn't clean out its own house soon, there will be no public trust left - and without that, the no profession can survive.

Not a single researcher can in the lab show a measurable positive ingested effect of increased fluoride content in teeth in over 2 decades. Featherstone in 2000 in JADA said no measurable decrease in caries at even 100 times more fluoride content in enamel. There is no relationship of cavity reduction to increased fluoride period. There might be a topical reminerization effect but only at high levels. Drinking 1ppm had no measurable topical effect.
Hardy Limeback DDS leading researcher Canada said in his practice and many others the high cost of enamel restoration far exceeds even the would be claimed benefit of a fraction .6 of one tooth surface in the biggest US study ever 1986-7 on 39,207 kids in 84 communities. They refused to publish the results as they first showed no benefit. They had to tweek the data and look at 5 year olds as they have a delayed eruption which falsely can be reported as actual cavity reduction. It is only a delay or shift in the cavity curve. Same number of cavities just 1 year delay. Slick huckers do this deception. The York 2000 UK stated 12.5% fluoridis was bad enough for cosmetic restoration. This is big bucks but out of pocket. Minorities like blacks get double the moderate and severe which is life changing ugly. 4% admitted by CDC in US but they refused to inform the public even after ethics charges to the CDC.
The CDC is still using the 32% dental fluorisis number but it is a average of non fluoridated children also so the fluoridated cities have much higher. The last big study by CDC showed 48.42% in 2003-2004 so they did not publish that or tell the public. That is multiple tooth damage and the single tooth is another 20 plus per cent. They do not mention that. In the huge 1986-7 study 66.4% dental fluorisis but they reported only 29.9% which is the multiple tooth damage with worse tooth not scored.
The biggest longest study ever by Teotia in India on over 400,000 showed water at .6ppm increased cavities especially when low on calcium. Japan said cavities increased at .4ppm and above on 20,000 kids. A study at a University in Arisona showedfluoridation increased cavities on 28,000 kids in study.
The 2007 Pizzo review showed no decrease in social inequities from fluoridation. Fluoridation hever has given poor kids rich kids teeth as was promised in 1945 in Advertisements by Health department.
Not a single state in CDC data shows reduced cavities from fluoridation but every state shows a income relationship of rich have better teeth. Just like before fluoridation. Every state with about a 25 % gap but ZERO trends yupon % of fluoridation. Actually many of the states with the almost 100% fluoridation have the most missing teeth. People need dental care and a dentist who will care. Very VERY few will treat the poor on Medicaid dental in the US. Washington DC has the most dentists per population in the US but only 2.5% actually treat even a single child per year billing medicaid. It is almost like a boycot leaving thm with no care. Some cities have not a single dentis who will treat the poor. My county of many cities has one public health dentist for 50,000 kids and 8 of over 200 dentists who signed up for medicair. Some actually treat kids some only one day a week as they do not want poor mixed with full pays. That class thing. My county webnt for years with ZERO public health dentists. 45,000 of tghe 50,000 are underserved by their own data. Every city is fluoridated but cavities and major problems in the very poor are increasing. Much of this is baby bottle tooth and sippy cup soda all day. This destroys teeth no matter how much fluoride. The system is on auto pilot with little real one on one to retrain people. It is nutrition first, dentists second, and home care just as important. The Dentists want to force fluoridation but fight anyone forcing them to treat the poor.
19 EPA unions feb 29 2008 now ask congress to halt fluoridation after discovering fraud and deception in 1985 and the first lawsuit in 1986 by the headquarters union. Instead the CDC and health departments are planning new mandatory fluoridation programs in 20 additional states. Failure qualifys a program for more funding. Good luck with your bone head power hungry so called public health experts. I do not think most are trainable. It is all a mindset and the public is to do things to. Your consultation was a total sham as were the promises they would listen. They see us as the ignorant masses that need leading. Fluoridation is very costly to avoid and it takes effort so most will be dosed never having informed consent or knowledge of very real lifetime cumulative toxic exposures. They keep us ignorant by not listing journals like Fluoride on the government medical index PUB med. Over 2500 journals and some very questionable ones but ban the one on fluoride. Thus you search on PUB med show little negative fluoride research when much exists. This is about group think not citizens. Do not allow this stupid non scientific policy. Ask tough questions of both sides.