Nick Clegg told to scrap fluoride laws (From Daily Echo)

It is no use asking 'Perky' when it is 'Pinky' who takes the decisions.

Not sure the puppets strings are long enough to allow him to make decisions of that magnitude!

Perhaps when this poison is added, those with unmetered supplies could just leave their outside tap running day and night as a protest?

Can someone please tell me what provable harm the addition of small amounts of flouride to water can cause?

I have seen an awful lot of clamour from people who do not want it, but nothing provable about what harm it actually does?

At the same time I see a lot of organisations saying it should be added with assertions of the benefits and backed up by evidence...

Perhaps it is purely a matter of "rights" with no rationale, I don't know...

I get the impression that sometimes the public is not capable of making decisions which are ultimately in their long term best interests due to the emotiveness of the issue.

Can someone please tell me what provable harm the addition of small amounts of flouride to water can cause?

I have seen an awful lot of clamour from people who do not want it, but nothing provable about what harm it actually does?

At the same time I see a lot of organisations saying it should be added with assertions of the benefits and backed up by evidence...

Perhaps it is purely a matter of "rights" with no rationale, I don't know...

I get the impression that sometimes the public is not capable of making decisions which are ultimately in their long term best interests due to the emotiveness of the issue.

Flouride causes no damage to us.

Does no good either.
Just costs lots of money we do not have.

Proof?

housewife wrote:
Does no good either. Just costs lots of money we do not have.

Apparently from what I have just read, it decreases childhood tooth cavities by 50-60%....and presumably the treatment of which is relatively costly... particularly at a time when so many people cannot get a dentist on the NHS, and the Dental service is so stretched.
I also read that in the US, fluoridation of water supplies costs $0.94c or about 60p per person.... Sounds to me that it is a small price to pay!!!! Bargain!!!

I genuinely get the impression that some issues are dominated by a very vocal minority and the amount of misinformation that goes around is picked up and sways public opinion beyond ratonality...

Do these Luddites want to remove iodine from salt as well?

Search Google for loads of reports detailing the adverse effects of fluoride. My issue with it is that going over recommended limits would be quite easy, and I'd put money that a lot of the people (children) who have bad teeth don't actually drink much water anyway - fizzy drinks will be much more interesting to them.

Ozmosis wrote:
Search Google for loads of reports detailing the adverse effects of fluoride. My issue with it is that going over recommended limits would be quite easy, and I'd put money that a lot of the people (children) who have bad teeth don't actually drink much water anyway - fizzy drinks will be much more interesting to them.

Fairly sure water goes in alot of stuff you eat, drink and wash in. Flouride is safe if it wasn't toothpaste may struggle to work.

Family Man wrote:
Can someone please tell me what provable harm the addition of small amounts of flouride to water can cause?

I have seen an awful lot of clamour from people who do not want it, but nothing provable about what harm it actually does?

At the same time I see a lot of organisations saying it should be added with assertions of the benefits and backed up by evidence...

Perhaps it is purely a matter of "rights" with no rationale, I don't know...

I get the impression that sometimes the public is not capable of making decisions which are ultimately in their long term best interests due to the emotiveness of the issue.

The problem here is like a lot of political decisions - they are made without the public being educated on the subject or asked for their opinion. A case of "We're doing this, and if you don't like it, tough!"
It was the same with the smoking ban. There were many who thought pub landlords and club owners should be able to decide if they wanted their establishment to be non-smoking or not. But the government comes along and imposes the ban everywhere and we have no say.
If we are given more opportunity to learn why such decisions are being made and then have a chance to vote on them, people would be happier and politicians might get a bit more respect from us.

5outhy wrote:

Ozmosis wrote:
Search Google for loads of reports detailing the adverse effects of fluoride. My issue with it is that going over recommended limits would be quite easy, and I'd put money that a lot of the people (children) who have bad teeth don't actually drink much water anyway - fizzy drinks will be much more interesting to them.

Fairly sure water goes in alot of stuff you eat, drink and wash in. Flouride is safe if it wasn't toothpaste may struggle to work.

read the warnings that use to come on the box of toothpaste.
its says not to be consumed, to be spat out after brushing.

Sweed wrote:

Family Man wrote:
Can someone please tell me what provable harm the addition of small amounts of flouride to water can cause?

I have seen an awful lot of clamour from people who do not want it, but nothing provable about what harm it actually does?

At the same time I see a lot of organisations saying it should be added with assertions of the benefits and backed up by evidence...

Perhaps it is purely a matter of "rights" with no rationale, I don't know...

I get the impression that sometimes the public is not capable of making decisions which are ultimately in their long term best interests due to the emotiveness of the issue.

The problem here is like a lot of political decisions - they are made without the public being educated on the subject or asked for their opinion. A case of "We're doing this, and if you don't like it, tough!"
It was the same with the smoking ban. There were many who thought pub landlords and club owners should be able to decide if they wanted their establishment to be non-smoking or not. But the government comes along and imposes the ban everywhere and we have no say.
If we are given more opportunity to learn why such decisions are being made and then have a chance to vote on them, people would be happier and politicians might get a bit more respect from us.

in one off small dose, fluoride will not do any harm, but heres the problem. the human body can not depose of fluoride from the body so it just builds up and over a long period of time it will cause problem in the bone's, nails and teeth. the older you are the less chances you will have problems, but a new born baby will have a life time to get the build up and will have problems say near retirement age.

kids have teeth problems because off what they eat and drink, and what is all so not helping in a very big way is that the maggies 80's government closed down all the NHS school dentists.

Family Man wrote:
Can someone please tell me what provable harm the addition of small amounts of flouride to water can cause? I have seen an awful lot of clamour from people who do not want it, but nothing provable about what harm it actually does? At the same time I see a lot of organisations saying it should be added with assertions of the benefits and backed up by evidence... Perhaps it is purely a matter of "rights" with no rationale, I don't know... I get the impression that sometimes the public is not capable of making decisions which are ultimately in their long term best interests due to the emotiveness of the issue.

Flouride has its uses - but consider this all the water you will use will contain it and you will water your garden, cook with it, drink it, your pets will receive it, etc. - all for the sake of the small amount you need for dental health.
.
Toothpaste, when use,d delivers exactly the same benefit and is targetted.
.
To medicate everything thing and everybody because a few people can't clean their teeth properly is simply wrong.

5outhy wrote:
Flouride causes no damage to us.

What do you mean, it prevented you from spelling correctly and writing english that we can understand

Flouride is a poison. The germans used it during world war 2. It is a substance that, when taken, causes irreversible damage. It causes indifference & complacency amongst other things. Try looking fluoride up on the internet, or research prozac tablets (fluoxitine).

Personally I'm trying to save for a reverse osmosis system, that way I wont have to worry so much about whats in the water :D

5outhy wrote:

Ozmosis wrote:
Search Google for loads of reports detailing the adverse effects of fluoride. My issue with it is that going over recommended limits would be quite easy, and I'd put money that a lot of the people (children) who have bad teeth don't actually drink much water anyway - fizzy drinks will be much more interesting to them.

Fairly sure water goes in alot of stuff you eat, drink and wash in. Flouride is safe if it wasn't toothpaste may struggle to work.

What has what you wash your clothes in got to do with anything? You won't absorb the fluoride from your clothes!
.
The water in food is irrelevant unless it's added by the person cooking it, or the food is grown locally.
.
I've already said my bit about fizzy drinks - kids may drink squash but I have my doubts.
.
Quit trolling - it's clear you have no idea what you are talking about!

Dear Family Man

There are many reasons not to have flouride added.
This registered poision has no value at all, and it was all done thru the 1940 study from small town in texas but they did not state, the level of sugar that was in people's diet,also the study of bone health was never done either.
The whole story of flouride is about using waste from the alumunium/fertilizer industries.

It is NOT a trace element or mineral that is neccessary for a diet.

Look at the WHO site - there is a scientist that has stated that Flouride displaces minerals - which backs up the china study of increased bone problems.

Either way you think, if you want flouride there is more than enough in the average toothpaste.

This piosion does have a very negative impact on bone health - read the china study. More oestoeporosis etc,.. in the long term.

Flouride is the most toxic/cancerous poision that we could have in our water. It has NEVER been tested properly either. POLITICANS KNOW THIS. They just want the taxes from the businesses.

Family Man wrote:

housewife wrote:
Does no good either. Just costs lots of money we do not have.

Apparently from what I have just read, it decreases childhood tooth cavities by 50-60%....and presumably the treatment of which is relatively costly... particularly at a time when so many people cannot get a dentist on the NHS, and the Dental service is so stretched.
I also read that in the US, fluoridation of water supplies costs $0.94c or about 60p per person.... Sounds to me that it is a small price to pay!!!! Bargain!!!

I genuinely get the impression that some issues are dominated by a very vocal minority and the amount of misinformation that goes around is picked up and sways public opinion beyond ratonality...

Complete trust in the government is not wise. 19 EPA unions today ask congress to halt fluoridation. They first called fluoridation fraud in 1985 after documents were altered. The EPA headquarters is not fluoridated but the city is as the scientists would not work in a fluoridated building. Go to http://www.fluoridea
ction.net or http://www.waterloow
atch.com. See the evil side of fluoride you missed. Real science not government BS. Dentists income in the US has soared way past doctors in the last two decades and they work often half the hours. Fluoride damaged teeth are the new cash cow driving their wealth. Some might think this a conflict of interest. Even back in 1972 the JADA admitted dentists made 17% more income in fluoridated cities. That has grown with all the cosmetic work that the poor can not afford. Very few dentists in the US actually accept medicaid payment for poor kids. Many receive no care. Most doctors do accept medicaid.
Even the CDC in 1999 MMWR had to admit it is a topical benefit. The researchers all prove it has no ingested benefit but now claim the benefit is topical. Maybe at 1000ppm but not at 1ppm. Most of europe rejects fluoridation but Ireland does about 70% and England 10%. This import is pure stupidity do not be the rube that got tricked. Read the Fluoride Deception by a brit from BBC who researched this fraud for 10 years. Chris Bryson. Watch his video on FAN. Any questions ? Just ask. Do not trust anyone on this. Research both sides. Most dentists get the science all wrong. Yoder K.M. 2007 shows test results . 80% plus flunked the basic theory as it has changed. See the study findings on pubmed.com About 20% or less dentists know it is a topical effect is posterupted teeth. Shameful ignorance.

Can we keep the SHA laws on fluoride....and scrap Clegg

hello.

Fluoride, if by choice you wish to administer, is done by swilling it around the mouth, not by drinking it!! This is a disgraceful act by goverment to pour this posien into peoples drinking water. The people of Birmingham for example are not informed of this additive drug in their water supply,they are given no choice, this is forced unannounced medication which is also administered incorrectly. If we wish to take this drug we brush it along our teeth via a paste and spit it out without swallowing!

An utter disgrace to poison the public,change is needed, and people deserve the right to choose. The same goes for mercury in fillings.

please help change for the whole of the UK and the world.